White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States
17-359
| Fed. Cl. | Dec 16, 2021Background
- White Mountain Apache Tribe (Tribe) owns the Fort Apache Reservation; longstanding problem of open dumps on tribal lands involving tribal members, visitors, and federal agencies.
- Federal agencies (IHS, BIA, EPA, HUD, USDA) have provided grants/assistance over decades; Tribe has repeatedly led inventory and cleanup efforts, with episodic federal support.
- Tribe filed suit in 2017 alleging the United States breached fiduciary duties under the Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act (the Act), later narrowing Phase I to an open-dump claim: failure to inventory, plan, close, and provide post-closure maintenance for dumps.
- The Government moved to dismiss (or for summary judgment), arguing the Act does not create specific fiduciary duties or a money-mandating source under the Indian Tucker Act and that IHS’s duties are discretionary and conditional.
- After jurisdictional discovery, the Court concluded the Act places primary responsibility on tribes, leaves allocation and prioritization to the IHS Director’s discretion, and conditions assistance on tribal requests and funding availability.
- Court dismissed the Phase I open-dump claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1); alternative summary-judgment request denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act creates specific fiduciary duties giving the Court jurisdiction under the Indian Tucker Act | The Act (esp. §3904) mandates IHS inventory/assessment and requires IHS to “shall” provide financial and technical assistance, creating fiduciary duties | Act only requires IHS to assist tribes; it leaves management/control to tribes and gives the Director discretion to prioritize and allocate funds | Court: Act does not create the specific, trust-creating duties required for Tucker Act jurisdiction; dismissal granted |
| Whether the Act is money-mandating (permits damages against the U.S.) | “Shall” language and statutory scheme imply money-mandating duty and entitlement to damages for breach | Assistance is conditioned on tribal request, Director prioritization, and funds availability—so not a money-mandating obligation | Court: unnecessary to decide after finding no specific fiduciary duty; Act fails prong one of Mitchell test |
| Whether statutory prerequisites (e.g., tribal request/inventory) were met | Tribe alleges IHS failed to provide assistance and that many dumps remain; claims include dumps identified before and after March 16, 2011 | Government stresses §3904(a) requires a tribal request to trigger IHS inventory/evaluation and that no such request (or required conditions) were shown | Court: Act’s scheme conditions assistance on tribal request and Director discretion; evidence shows Tribe historically led cleanup efforts, supporting conclusion that Act vests primary responsibility with tribes |
| Whether other statutes/context (RCRA, Snyder Act, §162a, ISDA) convert the Act into a trust-creating, money-mandating statute | The Act should be read with RCRA, Snyder Act, and §162a to show a network imposing fiduciary duties and money-mandating obligations | Related statutes are general, discretionary, or pertain to funds (not land-management fiduciary duties) and do not supply the missing specific, trust-creating controls | Court: Related statutes do not supply the “elaborate” federal control needed; they do not create fiduciary duties sufficient for Tucker Act jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1979) (Mitchell I) (statutory language must unambiguously impose trust duties to support damages claim)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (Mitchell II) (extensive federal control over resource management can create fiduciary duty and money-mandating liability)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (Navajo II) (Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction requires specific trust-creating statute and money-mandating source)
- Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States, 564 U.S. 162 (2011) (government’s common-law trust obligations insufficient; need specific statute/regulation)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) (Navajo I) (statutes granting broad discretion to officials do not necessarily impose fiduciary duties enforceable in damages)
- White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 537 U.S. 465 (2003) (recognizing money-mandating liability where trust language and government occupancy showed fiduciary duty over specific property)
- El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. United States, 750 F.3d 863 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Act construed as directing assistance, leaving tribes primary responsibility and Director discretion; persuasive on fiduciary-duty question)
- Hopi Tribe v. United States, 782 F.3d 662 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (two-part test reiterated: identify specific fiduciary duties and show law is money-mandating)