United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe
155 L. Ed. 2d 40, 537 U.S. 465, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 1944 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the United States holds property in trust for an Indian tribe and also exercises plenary control and occupation over that property, a substantive fiduciary duty to preserve the trust property can be inferred, and the breach of that duty is compensable with money damages under the Indian Tucker Act.
Facts:
- In 1960, the U.S. Congress enacted a law providing that the former Fort Apache Military Reservation would be 'held by the United States in trust for the White Mountain Apache Tribe'.
- The 1960 Act also granted the Secretary of the Interior the right to use any part of the land and improvements for administrative or school purposes for as long as needed.
- Pursuant to this right, the Department of the Interior occupied and used approximately 30 of the fort's buildings and other structures.
- Over time, the property occupied by the U.S. government fell into a state of disrepair.
- In 1993, the White Mountain Apache Tribe commissioned an engineering assessment, which concluded in 1998 that it would cost approximately $14 million to rehabilitate the government-occupied property according to historic preservation standards.
Procedural Posture:
- The White Mountain Apache Tribe filed a lawsuit against the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking money damages for breach of fiduciary duty.
- The United States moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing no statute created a right to sue for money damages.
- The Court of Federal Claims (the trial court) granted the motion to dismiss, finding the 1960 Act created only a 'bare trust' insufficient to support the Tribe's claim.
- The Tribe (as appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the intermediate appellate court) reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the government's use and control of the property created a compensable duty.
- The United States (as petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the U.S. Supreme Court granted.
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 1960 Act, which designates the former Fort Apache military post as trust property for the White Mountain Apache Tribe while permitting the United States to occupy and use it, create a substantive right enforceable through a suit for money damages for breach of fiduciary duty?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
Yes. The 1960 Act creates a substantive right enforceable by a suit for money damages. The statute goes beyond the 'bare trust' found in Mitchell I because it not only explicitly creates a trust but also grants the United States plenary control through its occupation and use of the property. This level of control is analogous to the 'elaborate control' in Mitchell II, and from this trust relationship and control, a common-law fiduciary duty to preserve the trust property can be fairly inferred. The Indian Tucker Act provides the necessary waiver of sovereign immunity to seek money damages for the breach of this duty, as it is a fundamental principle of trust law that a trustee must preserve trust assets.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. The 1960 Act does not create a substantive right enforceable by a suit for money damages. The Act is silent regarding any specific maintenance duties or the availability of a damages remedy, which under the precedent of Mitchell I, creates only a 'bare trust'. The majority improperly shifts the inquiry from specific statutory mandates to murky common-law principles inferred from the government's factual control over the property. This approach lacks support in precedent and creates an unpredictable standard, deviating from the rule that a right to money damages against the government must be founded on a clear congressional mandate.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. The 1960 Act creates a substantive right enforceable by a suit for money damages. This case is properly aligned with Mitchell II because the statute expressly establishes a trust and, critically, authorizes the government-trustee to use and occupy the trust corpus. The combination of an explicit trust and the plenary control exercised by the government as an occupant and manager creates fiduciary obligations beyond a 'bare trust'. Therefore, a damages remedy for allowing the trust property to fall into ruin is fairly inferable from the governing statute and the nature of the relationship it created.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the framework established in the Mitchell cases for tribal trust claims against the United States. It establishes that extensive, direct governmental control and occupation of trust property can serve as a substitute for the comprehensive statutory and regulatory schemes that were central to Mitchell II. The Court's reliance on common-law trust principles to infer a duty of preservation, even absent explicit statutory language, lowers the threshold for tribes to bring compensable claims for mismanagement. This precedent expands the government's potential liability for its role as trustee where it also functions as a user or manager of tribal assets.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe