Joint Tribal Council of Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton
528 F.2d 370 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Indian Nonintercourse Act applies to all bona fide Indian tribes, including those not formally recognized by the federal government through specific treaties or statutes, and this application establishes a trust relationship and fiduciary duty between the United States and the tribe concerning its land transactions.
Facts:
- The Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe has constituted a distinct Indian tribe in the racial and cultural sense since at least 1776.
- During the Revolutionary War, the Tribe supported the American Colonies in exchange for promises of protection for their lands and rights from the Continental Congress.
- In 1794, the Tribe entered into an agreement with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ceding most of its aboriginal territory in exchange for a 23,000-acre tract and other rights.
- In 1790, four years prior to this land transaction, the First Congress had enacted the Indian Nonintercourse Act, which invalidated any conveyance of Indian lands made without federal authority.
- When Maine separated from Massachusetts in 1820, it contractually assumed all of Massachusetts's duties and obligations towards the Indians within its borders, an arrangement Congress approved.
- For nearly 200 years, the federal government had almost no dealings with the Passamaquoddy Tribe, while the states of Massachusetts and Maine continuously legislated for and provided services to them.
- The Tribe requested that the Secretary of the Interior sue the State of Maine on its behalf to redress wrongs, including the 1794 land transaction which the Tribe alleged violated the Nonintercourse Act.
- The Secretary of the Interior refused to initiate the lawsuit, asserting that no trust relationship existed between the United States and the Tribe due to the absence of a treaty and the long history of state, not federal, oversight.
Procedural Posture:
- Representatives of the Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe sued the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine after the Secretary refused to file suit against the State of Maine on the Tribe's behalf.
- The plaintiffs initially sought a declaratory judgment and a preliminary injunction to compel the defendants to file a protective action.
- The district court granted the preliminary injunction, and the defendants complied by filing a lawsuit, United States v. Maine.
- Plaintiffs then filed amended complaints seeking only a declaratory judgment that the Tribe was entitled to federal protection under the Nonintercourse Act and that a trust relationship existed.
- The State of Maine was permitted to intervene in the action as a defendant.
- The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on all points, issuing the requested declaratory judgment.
- The federal defendants and the State of Maine, as intervenor, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Indian Nonintercourse Act create a trust relationship between the United States and the Passamaquoddy Tribe, an Indian tribe that has not been federally recognized through a specific treaty or statute, thereby preventing the federal government from refusing to sue on the Tribe's behalf solely on the grounds that no such relationship exists?
Opinions:
Majority - Campbell, Circuit Judge
Yes. The Indian Nonintercourse Act creates a trust relationship between the United States and the Passamaquoddy Tribe, preventing the federal government from denying its fiduciary duty solely because the Tribe is not federally recognized by treaty or statute. The court reasoned that the plain language of the Act, which applies to 'any...tribe of Indians,' is inclusive and not limited to federally recognized tribes. The historical purpose of the Act was to protect the land occupancy rights of all Indian tribes from improvident disposition. The court found no legislative history or congressional intent to support a narrower interpretation. Furthermore, a state's voluntary assumption of responsibilities toward a tribe does not terminate the federal government's pre-existing duties under the Act. Once a trust relationship is established by Congress, only Congress can terminate it through a 'plain and unambiguous' act, and a long period of federal inaction does not constitute such a termination.
Analysis:
This decision was a landmark in federal Indian law, establishing that the protections of the Indian Nonintercourse Act extend to all bona fide tribes, not just those with a formal treaty-based relationship with the United States. It affirmed that a trust relationship can arise directly from a statute of general applicability, thereby broadening the scope of the federal government's fiduciary duties. This ruling opened the door for numerous non-federally recognized tribes, particularly in the eastern United States, to pursue long-dormant land claims against states for historical land cessions that lacked federal approval, fundamentally altering the legal landscape for tribal land rights.
