Wyandot Nation of Kansas v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10169
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- The Wyandot Nation of Kansas (Wyandot Nation) claims to be a federally recognized successor to the Historic Wyandot Nation and sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for (1) an accounting and damages relating to Schedule A funds from an 1867 treaty (Category One) and (2) damages/ownership interests and revenues tied to the Huron Cemetery (Category Two).
- The United States treats the Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma as the federally recognized successor (and the beneficiary of trust interests), while Wyandot Nation of Kansas is not on Interior’s list of federally recognized tribes and previously conceded non‑federal recognition in a 1996 settlement.
- The American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act requires Interior to account for funds held in trust for an “Indian tribe,” and the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act (List Act) tasks the Secretary of the Interior with maintaining the list of federally recognized tribes and supplies administrative procedures for recognition.
- Wyandot Nation petitioned Interior in 1996 for recognition but did not pursue the administrative process to a final decision; Interior made a preliminary finding that it did not qualify for acknowledgement via the administrative process.
- The Claims Court dismissed both claim categories without prejudice: Category One for lack of jurisdiction/time‑bar due to absence from the Interior list and Category Two for lack of standing (finding beneficial interest in Huron Cemetery held for the Oklahoma Wyandotte). The Federal Circuit affirmed, applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to require Interior determination on recognition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wyandot Nation is entitled to an accounting under the Reform Act | Wyandot Nation says it is a federally recognized tribe (by treaty succession) and thus entitled to an accounting (which would toll limitations via appropriation riders) | U.S. says Wyandot Nation is not a federally recognized tribe under the List Act/Interior list, so no accounting entitlement and claims are time‑barred | Court: determination of federal recognition is within Interior’s primary jurisdiction; dismissal without prejudice appropriate pending administrative process (absence from list means no accounting now) |
| Whether Wyandot Nation has standing/beneficial interest in Huron Cemetery | Wyandot Nation claims successor property interest in cemetery and revenues | U.S. says title/trust and beneficial interest are held for Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma, not Wyandot Nation of Kansas | Court: threshold recognition/successorship question is for Interior; dismiss without prejudice (no present standing shown) |
| Whether courts must require exhaustion of Interior administrative remedies for recognition before allowing related claims | Wyandot Nation contends exhaustion not required here for accounting/damages claims | U.S. argues administrative path is necessary; List Act provides exclusive recognition mechanism | Court: formal exhaustion doctrine not strictly applied, but primary jurisdiction/prudential deference requires Interior resolution first; Wyandot may continue its administrative petition |
| Whether Tucker Act jurisdiction is displaced by List Act/regulatory scheme | Wyandot Nation argues Tucker Act claims for money and accounting remain cognizable in Claims Court | U.S. argues the List Act/regulations exclusive for recognition determinations, affecting entitlement | Court: did not find Tucker Act displaced for all claims but held recognition is a threshold within Interior’s competence; dismissal without prejudice affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolfchild v. United States, 731 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir.) (discussing notice and reliance on public distributions in tolling/accounting contexts)
- Cobell v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 808 (D.C. Cir.) (courts can order equitable accountings under Reform Act)
- Western Pacific R.R. Co. v. Western Pacific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59 (Supreme Court) (doctrine of primary jurisdiction explained)
- Port of Boston Marine Terminal Ass’n v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U.S. 62 (Supreme Court) (routing threshold issues to agencies)
- Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exch., 409 U.S. 289 (Supreme Court) (stay pending agency action when agency expertise material)
- Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 (Supreme Court) (primary jurisdiction and discretionary dismissal without prejudice)
- James v. HHS, 824 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir.) (tribal recognition questions should first be resolved by Interior)
- Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell, 829 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir.) (prudential reasons to defer recognition determinations to Interior)
- Western Shoshone Bus. Council v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir.) (absence from Interior list is dispositive for recognition issues)
- United Tribe of Shawnee Indians v. United States, 253 F.3d 543 (10th Cir.) (requirement to seek Interior recognition before judicial recognition)
- Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe v. Weicker, 39 F.3d 51 (2d Cir.) (primary jurisdiction/exhaustion considerations in tribal recognition contexts)
- Samish Indian Nation v. United States, 419 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.) (tribal recognition is political and generally for executive/agency determination)
- Conley v. Ballinger, 216 U.S. 84 (Supreme Court) (tribal cemetery rights are held by the tribe, not individuals)
- Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir.) (referring to Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma as beneficial holders regarding Huron Cemetery)