The Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming v. United States
672 F.3d 1021
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Tribes challenge a Court of Federal Claims dismissal of Claim II as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501; the dismissal held the claim accrued well before suit and was not tolled.
- Claim II alleges conversion of seven 1916 Act leases to 1938 Act leases, arguing greater royalty terms if kept under 1916 Act.
- The leases were converted in 1949–1950 with Tribal Council approval; some conversions involved British-American and Husky interests.
- Lands involved were restored ceded lands in 1940–1944; ceded lands’ status affected whether 1916 Act or 1938 Act leased terms applied.
- The district court rejected theories of continuing trespass and tolling under the Interior Appropriations Act, leading to a judgment for the Government.
- The Federal Circuit vacates and remands to determine whether a continuing trespass claim exists and whether the Government had a duty to eject trespassers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claim II accrues for statute-of-limitations purposes. | Tribes say accrual deferred or tolled, and continuing trespass applies. | Accrual occurred when facts were known; no tolling under the Interior Appropriations Act. | Claim II accrual occurred before suit; tolling not applicable; continuing trespass recognized on remand. |
| Whether the Interior Appropriations Act tolls Claim II. | Claim II concerns trust funds and is tollable under the Act. | Claim II concerns trust assets, outside the Act’s tolling scope. | Interior Appropriations Act tolling not applicable to Claim II. |
| Whether Claim II is a continuing trespass. | Each non-competitive lease conversion constitutes ongoing trespass. | Leases were authorized by Tribal actions; not trespassers under the record. | Remanded to determine if a continuing trespass duty exists and its scope. |
| Whether the leases are void and create trespassers on the land. | Converted leases void for lack of competitive bidding; lessees trespassers. | Conversions valid; leases not void for all purposes; trespass analysis uncertain. | Court remands to decide if the 1916/1938 Act framework creates a duty to eject trespassers. |
| Whether the Government had a duty to eject trespassers under a Tucker Act theory. | Government fiduciary duties require removal of trespassers. | No explicit duty identified under cited statutes/regulations in this posture. | Remand to develop record on whether statutes/regulations create such a duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, 855 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (tolling not available for lack of notice in some trust-claim contexts)
- Fallini v. United States, 56 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ( accrual and notice standards in trust claims)
- Shoshone II, 364 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussion of accrual, tolling, and trust-duty principles)
- Shoshone III, 93 Fed. Cl. 449 (2010) (phase-two conclusions; tolling and continuing-trespass considerations)
- Navajo Nation v. United States, 631 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (general tolling and accrual principles; continuing-trespass context)
- Catawba Indian Tribe of S.C. v. United States, 982 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (objective accrual standard; ignorance of law not tolling)
- Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. United States, 543 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1976) (validity of conveyances under Nonintercourse Act when not lawfully authorized)
- Sangre de Cristo Dev. Co. v. United States, 932 F.2d 891 (10th Cir. 1991) (statutory prerequisites for conveyances; enforceability of noncompliant leases)
- Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456 (Supreme Court 1926) (invalid conveyance void; need for proper statutory authorization)
- Oenga v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 594 (2008) (duty to remove trespassers not grounded solely on 1916/1938 Acts)
- Cherokee Nation v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 576 (Cl. Ct. 1980) (early precedent on standing to state a trespass duty under regulatory regimes)
- Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2313 (Supreme Court 2011) (expresses need for specific statutes creating fiduciary duties; articulates Indian Tucker Act scope)