Wolfchild v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19781
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Mid- to late-19th-century events: after the 1862 Sioux uprising, Congress annulled treaties with Minnesota Sioux but carved out discretionary authority (1863 Acts) to set aside land for those who aided whites; later appropriations (1888–1890) allocated funds to support specified Mdewakanton individuals who had ‘‘severed their tribal relations.’’
- The 1888–1890 Acts funded purchases of land (title retained by U.S., use restricted) for the benefit of those named beneficiaries; communities formed on much of that land (three present-day communities) but membership did not perfectly match the statutorily designated beneficiaries or their descendants.
- In 1980 Congress declared that lands purchased under the 1888–1890 Acts would be held in trust for the three communities, equalizing their status with lands later acquired under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA).
- Pre-1980 revenues (leases, a 1944 land transfer, etc.) and large post-1980 gaming profits have been distributed to the three communities; claimants (lineal descendants of the 1888–1890 beneficiaries) sued seeking pre- and other revenues, asserting statutory and constitutional claims.
- Procedural posture: this court previously rejected the claim that the 1888–1890 Acts created a trust for original beneficiaries/descendants (Wolfchild I). On remand claimants amended with new theories; the Court of Federal Claims allowed a claim for pre-1980 revenues and denied other proposed claims; the government and claimants cross-appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1888–1890 Acts are money-mandating as to claimants for pre-1980 land proceeds | The Acts (and their use restrictions) impose a substantive, money-mandating duty requiring revenues from lands bought with those appropriations be paid to designated Indians and their descendants | The Acts contain only authority/discretion to spend appropriated funds for designated Indians; they do not create enforceable duties to pay descendants or future proceeds | Reversed: Acts are not money-mandating as to claimants’ asserted descendant/proceeds claim; prior rejection of a trust claim controls and statutory text lacks the required rights-creating prescriptions |
| Whether ITAS (Indian Trust Accounting Statute) tolled the limitations period for pre-1980 revenue claims | ITAS delays accrual until an accounting allows beneficiaries to detect loss, so claim brought in 2003 is timely | The funds were not trust funds subject to substantive trust duties (per Wolfchild I); moreover funds were publicly disbursed in 1981–82 so claimants were on notice | Affirmed (for defendant): ITAS does not save the claim; claim is time-barred in any event |
| Whether the 1863 Acts create money-mandating duties (or viable §1491(a)(2) affirmative relief) regarding land grants promised to loyal Sioux | Section 9’s language and subsequent government acts (1865 withdrawals) created enforceable rights/duties to set aside land or, if land was set aside, damages or specific relief follow | Section 9 grants discretionary authority (“is hereby authorized”), not a duty to act; any 1865 actions that might have set apart land were undone by sale long ago and are time-barred | Affirmed (for defendant): Section 9 is discretionary and no timely viable damages claim exists; §1491(a)(2) relief also fails |
| Whether INIA or treaties support land/fund claims | INIA invalidates non-treaty conveyances of Indian land and imposes fiduciary duties; treaties or INIA thereby supply money-mandating duties or property bases | Claimants lack an extant property right under the treaties or statutes; they also lack status as a coherent "tribe" for INIA purposes; prior statutes (1863 annulment) extinguished treaty rights | Affirmed (for defendant): INIA/treaty theories fail because no surviving property right in claimants and claimants do not qualify as a tribe under INIA |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolfchild v. United States, 559 F.3d 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (prior panel opinion rejecting that the 1888–1890 Acts created a trust for statutorily designated beneficiaries or their descendants)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (framework for identifying money-mandating sources under the Indian Tucker Act)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) (limitations on inferring money-mandating duties from statutory language)
- Greenlee Cnty. v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (statute must be money-mandating as to the particular plaintiff class)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (statutory construction principles for money-mandating analysis)
- Shoshone Indian Tribe v. United States, 364 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (purpose of ITAS and when accounting is necessary to trigger limitations)
- San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States, 639 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (final accounting unnecessary where claim involves open repudiation of alleged trust duty)
- United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003) (a "fair inference" can suffice to find a money-mandating duty under the Tucker Act)