United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162

Jicarilla Apache Nation sues United States in the Court of Federal Claims for mismanagement of tribal trust funds (timber, gravel, oil/gas) from 1972–1992.
Trust funds are held in trust by the United States under statutes including the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994.
During 2002–2008 discovery, 226 documents were withheld under attorney‑client privilege, work product, or deliberative‑process privilege; 71 were produced, 155 remained privileged.
The Court of Federal Claims ruled that a fiduciary exception to the attorney‑client privilege applied to trust‑fund communications, treating the U.S. as a private trustee.
Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the fiduciary exception could apply where trust management was at issue and the U.S. had not shown competing interests; certiorari granted.
This Supreme Court opinion holds that the fiduciary exception does not apply to the U.S.–tribal trust relationship because the trust is statutory/sovereign, not a common‑law private trust.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the fiduciary exception applies to the attorney‑client privilege in U.S.–tribal trust management.	Tribe argues real client is the Tribe; communications about trust are not privileged.	Government argues it is not a private trustee; statute governs duties; privilege should apply.	Fiduciary exception does not apply; government may withhold privileged communications.
Whether the U.S. trust relationship with Indian tribes is sufficiently like a private trust to warrant the fiduciary exception.	Analogy to private trusts supports disclosure.	Trust is statutory and sovereign, not private; common‑law duties do not override statute.	Not sufficiently analogous; fiduciary exception not imposed.
Whether statutory provisions (e.g., 25 U.S.C. §162a(d)) limit or define the government’s disclosure obligations over common‑law trust principles.	Statutes recognize broad trust responsibilities that imply disclosure.	Statutes narrowly define duties; no general common‑law disclosure obligation.	Statutory framework governs; does not import a general common‑law fiduciary duty to disclose.

Riggs Nat. Bank of Washington, D. C. v. Zimmer, 355 A.2d 709 (Del. Ch. 1976) (two rationales for fiduciary exception: real client and disclosure duty)
United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) (Navajo I; statutory fiduciary duties defined; common-law may inform interpretation)
United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (Navajo II; common-law trust principles flesh out fiduciary duties in statutory regime)
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) (attorney‑client privilege; government clients entitled to privilege under common law)
Heckman v. United States, 224 U.S. 413 (1912) (sovereign interest in Indian affairs; policy considerations in fiduciary relation)