Wolfchild v. United States
101 Fed. Cl. 54
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- This is the seventh opinion in Wolfchild v. United States, involving about 20,750 lineal descendants of loyal Mdewakanton Sioux seeking funds tied to the 1886 lands and related 1888–1890 Appropriations Acts.
- The court previously held that the loyal Mdewakanton and lineal descendants are entitled to funds from leasing/licensing the 1886 lands, with certain funds not traceable to the Wabasha Land Transfer.
- In 1980, Congress created a trust for three Sioux communities from the 1886 lands, affecting post-1980 income distributions, while pre-1980 funds remained governed by prior law and the Appropriations Acts.
- The parties stipulated the corpus of funds at issue as of January 1, 2011: $673,944, with disputed issues remaining on claimant eligibility and the role of the 1863 Acts.
- Plaintiffs sought amendments asserting claims under the Indian Non-Intercourse Act and the 1863 Acts; the government sought to defer, dismiss, or limit consideration under various theories.
- The court ultimately held that the Indian Judgment Distribution Act governs the disposition of final funds and remanded to the Interior Department to prepare a claimant roll and distribution plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under the Non-Intercourse Act | Plaintiffs are lineal descendants of the loyal Mdewakanton seeking relief as a group, not as a tribe. | Plaintiffs are not a tribe and thus lack standing to sue under § 177. | Plaintiffs lack standing; not a tribe under the Non-Intercourse Act. |
| 1863 Acts as money-mandating or fiduciary | The 1863 Acts create a money-mandating duty and ongoing fiduciary relationship. | The Acts are discretionary and do not impose a money-mandating duty or fiduciary duties. | 1863 Acts do not impose money-mandating duties or fiduciary obligations. |
| Applicability of the Indian Judgment Distribution Act | Distribution Act applies to judgments in favor of an identifiable group of Indians, including individuals. | Act applies only to funds appropriated for specific judgments and may require a distribution plan by Interior. | Distribution Act applies; Secretary to prepare roll and plan for distribution. |
| Takings claim timeliness | Robertson-Vadnais group asserts Fifth Amendment takings with continuing effects. | Takings claims accrued in the 19th century and are time-barred; no viable continuing-takings theory. | Takings claims are time-barred; relief denied on that basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mashpee Tribe v. Secretary of Interior, 820 F.2d 480 (1st Cir. 1987) (tribal status essential for standing under Non-Intercourse Act)
- Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Weicker, 39 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 1994) (defining 'tribe' under Non-Intercourse Act with BIA criteria)
- New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 400 F. Supp. 2d 486 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (Montoya/Candelaria definition applied to tribal status)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (fiduciary duty requirements under Navajo Nation framework)
- Doe v. United States, 463 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discretionary language and money-mandating analysis in Tucker Act context)
- United States v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 432 (1926) (Montoya/Candelaria definition of 'tribe' for Non-Intercourse Act)