United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5–4 decision that when the federal government used land or property held in trust for an Indian tribe, it had the duty to maintain that land or property and was liable for any damages for a breach of that duty. In the 1870s, the White Mountain Apache Tribe was placed on a reservation in Arizona. The case involved Fort Apache, a collection of buildings on the reservation which were transferred to the tribe by the United States Congress in 1960.

Although the tribe owned the Fort Apache buildings, they were held in trust and used exclusively by the federal government for an Indian school. This was a continuation of the building's use from when the federal government retained title. As more schools were built at other Indian reservations, attendance dropped at the Fort Apache school. The tribe began to plan for use of the buildings and sought designation as a historic site. When the federal government wanted to turn the property over to the tribe for use, the tribe found that the property had deteriorated and sued for damages to the property. The trial court denied the tribe's claim, but the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the federal government had a duty to take care of the property. The government then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the tribe could not make a claim without Congressional authorization. The tribe argued that the 1960 act created the trust and authorized damages.

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, holding that the federal government used the property it held in trust, and that it therefore had a duty to maintain the property. Justice Ginsburg issued a concurring opinion, while Justice Thomas dissented. The loss led the government to settle with the tribe for $12 million. The buildings are managed by the Fort Apache Heritage Foundation and the case, along with several others define the Indian Trust Doctrine. The case has been widely discussed in legal literature and books, primarily in the area of Indian trusts.

Background

History In 1869 Major John Green led a force to the White River area and recommended that an outpost be established there.Joel A. Holt, Treat All Men Alike: An Analysis of United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe and Suggestions for True Reparation 38 413, 427 n.80 (2005); John R. Welch & Robert C. Brauchli, "Subject to the Right of the Secretary of the Interior": The White Mountain Apache Reclamation of the Fort Apache and Theodore Roosevelt School Historic District, 25 47, 49 (2010). In 1870 Fort Apache was established by the United States Army in Arizona and remained an active military installation until 1922, when it was transferred to the Department of the Interior (DOI).Act of Jan. 24, 1923, , codified as amended at (1994); United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 468 (2003); Holt at 427; , 286 (2006). A series of Executive Orders by President Ulysses S. Grant from 1871 to 1877 established the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, with the actual fort being held by the government as fee simple land.Welch at 51. From 1897 to 1922 the fort was in the middle of the reservation.Act of June 7, 1897, (1897); Holt at 427. Under the terms of the transfer, were set aside for the Theodore Roosevelt Indian School.25 U.S.C. § 277; White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 468; Holt at 427; Welch at 51–52.

The school initially housed 250 Navajo and Hopi children, and additional buildings were constructed to accommodate them.Welch at 53. Between 1933 and 1939, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) used the site for its regional trachoma school, using both laboratory animals and Indian children for experiments to treat the eye disease. During World War II, the school taught students from a good number of southwestern tribes. During the 1950s, as the tribe was fighting against termination, the emphasis of the school was on vocational and technical training.Welch at 54. Beginning in 1960, the BIA contracted for schools to be built near other tribes, and attendance at the school started to drop.

In 1960, Congress provided that Fort Apache was to be held in trust for the White Mountain Apache Tribe, but allowed the DOI to use the property for "administrative or school purposes."Act of Mar. 18, 1960, (1960); White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 469; Holt at 428; Welch at 54, 59–60; Brett J. Stavin, Responsible Remedies: Suggestions for Indian Tribes in Trust Relationship Cases 44 1743, 1760 (2012). By the 1970s, most of the other tribes had obtained their own schools, and the school normally had fewer than 100 students. With the reduction in the number of students, the BIA budget for Fort Apache also dropped, causing deferred maintenance and the demolition of several buildings.Welch at 54, 60.

The tribe resolved to place the site on the National Historic Registry.Holt at 428. In 1976, the National Park Service designated the site as a National Historic Site.White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 469; Holt at 428; at 286. By 1993, the tribe had adopted a master plan to try to preserve the buildings and commissioned a study to determine what the cost would be to restore the property.White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 469; Holt at 428; Welch at 57. The U.S. government acknowledged that some of the thirty-five buildings were in poor shape, but maintained that the rest were properly maintained.Holt at 429. In 1998, the site was designated by the World Monuments Fund as one of the 100 most endangered sites.Holt at 429; at 286; Fort Apache, (July 30, 2013 4:21 PM).

Federal Claims Court In 1999, the tribe filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, seeking $14,000,000 in damages for breach of trust by DOI.White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 20 (1999) rev'd 249 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001), aff'd 537 U.S. 465 (2003); Holt at 428-29; Stavin at 1760; at 286. The tribe argued that the United States had exclusive control over the buildings and allowed them to fall into disrepair, a violation of the trust relationship established by the 1960 statute.; Holt at 429 n.92; Welch at 61. Additionally, the tribe claimed that the Snyder ActSnyder Act, Nov. 2, 1921, , codified as amended (1994). and the National Historic Preservation Act applied in this case.National Historic Preservation Act, Oct. 15, 1966, , codified as amended et seq. (1994). The Snyder Act deals with appropriations to the BIA, and the National Historic Preservation Act discussed federal assistance for preservation programs.Holt at 429 n.92. The United States moved for dismissal on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.Holt at 429; Welch at 61. In addition, the United States claimed that the statute of limitations had run under both the Tucker ActTucker Act, Mar. 3, 1887, , codified as amended (1994). and the Indian Tucker Act,Indian Tucker Act, Aug. 13, 1946, , codified as amended (1994). the acts governing claims in the Federal Court of Claims. The trial court dismissed the suit on the failure to state a claim.White Mountain Apache Tribe, 46 Fed. Cl. at 29; Holt at 429; Welch at 61–62.

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals The tribe then appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 249 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001), aff'd 537 U.S. 465 (2003); Holt at 430; Welch at 62. The appellate court found that various federal laws required the DOI and BIA to maintain historic buildings and to maintain Indian trust properties, but that they did not authorize monetary damages.White Mountain Apache Tribe, 249 F.3d at 1373. The court then looked to the 1960 act. and determined that this act did create a trust relationship that could be enforced with monetary damages. at 286. This was based on common law, with the court referencing the Restatement (Second) of Trusts to outline that a trust requires a trustee (the United States), a beneficiary (the tribe), and a trust body (the land and buildings). The court noted that both parties agreed that there was a trust, but not that damages were authorized. The court held that where the United States had control over the use and maintenance of the buildings to the exclusion of the tribe, a fiduciary duty was created that authorized the tribe to seek monetary damages.White Mountain Apache Tribe, 249 F.3d at 1377. The court then reversed and remanded the decision of the trial court.White Mountain Apache Tribe, 249 F.3d at 1383; Welch at 62. The United States appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 471; Holt at 430–31.

Supreme Court

Arguments Gregory G. Garre, Assistant Solicitor General argued the case for the United States. As the petitioner, Garre argued that the 1960 act did not authorize monetary damages for a breach of trust duties.Br. of United States 11; Welch at 63. Their position was that while a trust was formed, the tribe could not make a claim for damages without explicit congressional authorization.Welch at 63. Further, he argued, the exclusive control does not create liability; only the explicit language of statutes and regulations could allow monetary damages.Br. of United States 12; Welch at 63. The position of the United States was that "in trust" meant was that the land was not subject to alienation or to state taxation.United States v. White Mt. Apache Tribe, (last visited July 30, 2013).

Robert C. Brauchli, an attorney from Arizona, argued the case for the White Mountain Apache Tribe. As respondent, Brauchli argued that the 1960 act, by using the term "trust", did create liability for monetary damages.Br. of White Mountain Apache Tribe 10; Welch at 63. Since a trust was formed by law, the Indian Tucker Act allowed a lawsuit for damages to go forward.Br. of White Mountain Apache Tribe 14–15; Welch at 62–63. The tribe noted that the trust relationship was "one of the primary cornerstones of Indian law".Br. of White Mountain Apache Tribe 17 (citing , 221 (1982 ed.). The National Congress of American Indians filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the tribe.Welch at 64–65.

Opinion of the Court

Justice David Souter delivered the opinion of the court. Souter noted that any suit against the United States required a clear waiver of sovereign immunity and held that a waiver was granted by the Indian Tucker Act if there were statutory grounds in another federal statute or regulation.; White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 473; at 258. Souter then noted the difference between a "limited" or bare trust obligation, as was outlined in United States v. Mitchell IUnited States v. Mitchell, (Mitchell I). (Mitchell I), and those which could impose fiduciary duties and carry monetary damages, as outlined in United States v. Mitchell IIUnited States v. Mitchell, (Mitchell II). (Mitchell II).White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 473–74. In Mitchell I, the United States held the land in trust to prevent alienation and to exempt the land from state taxation, but the tribe occupied and controlled the property. In such cases, the government did not have a fiduciary duty.White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 473. In Mitchell II, the United States also held the land in trust, but actively controlled the property through comprehensive timber management regulations. Here, the government did have a fiduciary duty to the tribe.White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 474; Holt at 431; Stavin at 1761; at 292.