Shoshone Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation v. United States of America
4:18-cv-00285
D. IdahoMay 16, 2025Background
- The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (“the Tribes”) sued the United States concerning lands in Pocatello, Idaho, originally part of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, historically ceded and then used for railroad rights-of-way.
- The Tribes allege the lands should revert to trust status for the Tribes and seek various forms of relief against the United States.
- The case has a significant procedural history: since being filed in 2018, it’s seen multiple amendments, dismissals, stays for settlement clarification in Washington D.C., and reconsideration motions following the Supreme Court’s Wilkins decision.
- Most claims previously raised by the Tribes were dismissed: the Quiet Title Act (QTA) and a declaratory judgment claim remain.
- The Tribes moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add or revive several claims; the United States opposed, arguing futility and legal barriers.
- The Court decided the motion without oral argument, focusing on whether proposed new claims were legally viable or would unduly delay the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repleading of previously dismissed claims | Claims (breach of trust, mandamus, ejectment) are newly viable or cured | No new basis; previously dismissed, some with prejudice; no new facts. | Denied as futile. No repleading allowed for prior dismissals. |
| Adding tort/quasi-contract claims (trespass, etc.) | Waiver of sovereign immunity under APA §702, claims not title-focused | No specific waiver; FTCA not met; QTA is exclusive for title disputes. | Denied as futile. Not viable or waived; QTA preempts others. |
| Claims barred by 2012 Settlement Agreement | Treaty rights and accounting claims still viable | Waived as part of 2012 settlement for monetary compensation. | Denied as futile; Settlement Agreement bars these claims. |
| "Bad Men" treaty provision claims | Tribes can assert on own behalf for acts by "bad men" | Treaty only allows individuals, not Tribes; must specify perpetrators. | Denied as futile. Tribe lacks standing; claims are non-cognizable. |
| Duplicative statutory claims (Acts of 1882, 1888) | Streamlines and clarifies legal issues | Already covered by existing QTA/declaratory claims; duplicative. | Denied as duplicative. Existing claims suffice. |
| Claims requesting remedies not causes (injunction, restitution) | Remedies needed as stand-alone claims | Remedies not independent causes of action; jurisdiction not shown. | Denied. Remedies may not proceed as isolated counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1981) (discretion to grant leave to amend should be guided by merits, not technicalities)
- Block v. N.D. ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (1983) (QTA is the exclusive means for adverse claims to U.S. real property)
- Hebah v. United States, 428 F.2d 1334 (Ct. Cl. 1970) ("Bad Men" treaty provisions grant individual, not tribal, causes of action)