Oglala LakotaSioux Tribe In Support Of Petitioners

11/20/2009 12:02 FAX 18665670221


Gonzalez

IaJ 002/035

No. _______




SHELDON PETERS WOLFCHILD, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent.


On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit


_______________________________________


BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

______________________________________________


Mario Gonzalez
Law Offices of Mario Gonzalez 522 Seventh Street, Suite 202 Rapid City, South Dakota 57701 Phone: 605~716-6355
Fax: 605-716-6357
Emall: gnzlaw@aol,com


Counsel for Amicus Curiae


i



---------------------------------------------------


11/20/2008 12:02 FAX 18665870221


Gonzalez
LIST OF PARTIES


I4J 003/035



SHELDON PETERS WOLFCHILD~ et al., ERNIE PETERS LONGWALKER, et al.~ SCOTT
ADOLPHSON, et at, MORRIS J. PENDLETON~ et al., BARBARA FEEZOR BUTTES, et at, WINIFRED ST. PIERRE FEEZOR~ et al., AUTUMN WEAVER, ct al., ARIES BESOTTING WEAVER, et al., ELIJAH BLUESTONE WEAVER, et al., RUBY MINKEL, et al., LAVONNE A. SWENSON, et aI., WILLIS SWENSON, et al., AARON SWENSON, et al., BEVERLY M. SCOTT~ et al., LILLIAN WILSON, et nl., MONIQUE WILSON, et al., SANDRA COLUMBUS GESHICK, et al., CHERYL l{, LORUSSO, et al., JENNIFER K. LORUSSO, et al., CASSANDRA SHEVCHU:K, et al., JASON
SHEVCHUK, et al., JAMES PAUL WILSON, et al., EVA GRACE WILSON, et aI., BENITA M. JOHNSON, et at, and KEVfN LORUSSO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and HARLEY D. ZEPIDER, SR., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and ELIZABETH T. WALKER, WALKER GROUP, and. JOHN DOES 1-30, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and
GERTRUDE GODOY, et al., MICHAEL STEPHENS, et al., JESSE CERMAK, et al., DELORES KLINGBERG, et al., SALLY ELLA ALKIRE, et al., PIERRE GEORGE ARNOLD, JR., et al., and DENISE HENDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees~ and LOWER SIOUX INDIAN COMMUN1TY, Plaintiffs-ApJ;1ellees, and WINONA C. THOMAS ENYARD, et aI., and JEFFREY ARNOLD KITTO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and MADALINE ROCQUE, et al.~ MARY TAYLOR (TATEWASTEWIN),

ii


--------------------------------------------------------------


11/20/2009 12:02 FAX 18885870221


Gonzalez


141 004/035




et al., MARGARET (DUMARCE) PRESCOTT, et al., and JOSEPH COURSOLLE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,


LIST OF PARTIES (CONT.)


and MARY BETH LAFFERTY~ et at, ANITAD WHIPPLE, et al., BONNIE RAE LOWE, et al., and LENORA. SCHEFFLER BLAESER, et aI., PlaintiffsAppellees, and JULIA DUMARCE, et al., PlaintiffsAppeUees, and FRANCINE GARREAU HALL, et al., Plaintiffs-AppeJIees, and KRISTINE ABRAHAMSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and VICTORIA ROBERTSON VADNAIS, et al.~ Plaintiffs-Appellees, and MARVEL JEAN DUMARCE, et al., and VIVIAN CORDELIA YOUNGBEAR, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and DANNY LEE MOZAK, et a)" Plantiffs-Appellees and DAWN BURLEY, RAYMOND COURNOYER, SR., FRANCIS ELAINE FELIX, REBECCA ELIZABETH FELIX, LYDIA FERRIS, LESLIE LEE FRENCH, DAWN HENRY, SANDRA KIMBELL, JERRY ROBINETTE, VASSAR. ROONEY, DEBORAH L. SAUL, ROBERT LEE TAYl.OR, DANIEL M. TRUDELL, LAURA VASSAR, CHARLENE WANNA, KE ZEPHIER, and JOlIN DOES 31-433, Petitioners, v. UNITED S'J.'ATES, Respondent.


iii


-----------------------------------------------------------------


11/20/2009 12:03 FAX 18885870221


Gonzalez
TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


I4J 005/035


___________________TABLE OF CONTENTS_________________

.................................................................................................PAGE

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES....................................................ii

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE.....................................................1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.............................................................4

ARGUMENT..................................................................................5

I. Review By This Court Should Be Granted
To Correct The Federal Circuit's) Decision Of
An Important Federal Question Regarding The
Creation Of Trust Relationships In Favor Of
Indians, As That Decision Conflicts With The
Relevant Decisions Of This Court, Namely
Mitchell II And White Mountain Apache.....................................................5

II. Review Should Be Granted To Decide
Whether A Trust In Favor Of Indians Can Be


iv


--------------------------------------------------------------


11/20/2008 12:03 FAX 18665670221


Gonzalez


I4J 006/035



Terminated By Congress Without Either
Express Or "Plain And Unambiguous`` Language,
Since The Federal Circuit's Decision Created A
Conflict In The Circuits On This Question .....................................................21

CONCLUSION................................................................................................26


............................................TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES.............................................


.............................................................................................................PAGE


Cases


Brown v. United States, 86 FJd 1554 (Fed. Cir.
1996)......................................................................................................10

Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363 (1930) ...............................................23

Cobell v, Norton, 240 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001)......................................8

DeCoteau v. District County Court for Tenth
JudicialDistrict, 420 U.s. 425,444 (1974).................................................24

Joint Tribal Council o/the Passmaquoddy Tribe
v, Monon, 528 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1975)..................................................25


LeBeauv. United States, 474 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 551 U.S. 1146 (2007) .............................................................9


...........................................................v.........................................................


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


11/20/2009 12:03 FAX 18885870221


Gonzalez


I4J 007/035



McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm 'n, 411 U.S.
164 (1973) ...............................................................................................23

Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States, 224
Ct. C1. 171,624 F.2d 981,987 (1980)..............................................................7

Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584
(1977)............................................................................................................23


__________________________TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES (Cont.)_____________

.........................................................................................................PAGE

Cases

Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286
(1942.).................................................................................................15

Smith v. Babbitt, 100 F,3d 556 (1996), cert. denied
sub nom. Feezor v. Babbitt, 522 U.S. 807 (1997)..................................6

Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984)................................................24

South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S.
329 (1998)..........................................................................................24

United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980)
[Mitchell II ............................................................................................9, 13

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983)
[Mitchell 11].......................................................................................passim

.............................................................vi................................................................


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


11/20/2009 12:04 FAX 18665670221


Bonzalez


~ 008/035


United States v. Navajo Na.tion, 537 U.S. 488
(2003)......................................................................................................13, 14


United States v. White Mountain Apache, 537 U,S.
465 (2003)............................................................................................passim


..............................................TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES (Cont,)..................

............................................................................................................PAGE

Cases

White Moun/ain Apache Tribe v. United States, 249
F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001), aff'd, 537 U.S. 807
(2003)..........................................................................................................8

Wolfchild v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 521 (2004),
rev'd, 559 F.3d 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2009)...........................................................1, 17, 22

Wolfchild 1), United States, 559 P.3d 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..
……………..........................................................................................................passim

Statutes


Act of June 29, 1888, ch. 503,25 Siat. 217.......................................................2


......................................................vii....................................................


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


11/20/2009 12:04 FAX 18885870221


Gonzalez


IaJ 009/035



Act of Mar. 2, 1889, ch. 412,25 Stat. 980...................................................2, 14

Act of Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 807,26 Stat. 336.................................................2, 14

Pub.L. No. 96-557, 94 Stat. 3262 (1980)..................................................22

......................................TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES (Cont.)......................................

....................................................................................................................PAGE

Rules

Supreme Court Rule 10(a)...............................................................................6

Supreme Court Rule I0(c)................................................................................6

Supreme Court Rule 37.3(a)............................................................................1


Other Authorities


Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 5.05[1],
at 429-30 (Nell Jessup Newton et aI., eds., 2005) ....................................12

Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 13 (2003).................................................11

Restatement (third) of Trusts § 65(1).........................................................22

...............................................viii..............................................................................

11/20/2008 12:08 FAX 18885870221


Gonzalez


!gJ 020/035


of the term "trust," even though the Federal Government

clearly had both control and supervision of the monies

appropriated by Congress for the benefit of the 1886

Mdewakantons and their lineal descendants, and of the

property purchased by the Secretary with such monies.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit gave great weight to the fact

that the Appropriations Acts, instead of using the term

"trust", contained "simple" or "minimal" statutory directives,

which the appeals court reasoned were insufficient to

"properly manifest" an intention on the part of Congress to

create a trust relationship. See id, quoting Restatement

(Third) of Trusts § 13 (2003).

Thus, the reasoning of the Federal Circuit in this case
-
is totally at odds with this Cowtls opinion in Mitchell II.

Furthennore, its presumption that it is doubtful that a trust

.........................................................11.....................................

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


11/20/2009 12:08 FAX 18665670221


Gonzalez


@021/035


relationship is created absent the use of the term "trust" in

the statute or regulation under review is not supported by the

authorities cited by the appeals court. The Cohen treatise 3

actually confirms the rule of Mitchell II that the use of the

word "trust" in a statute is not "necessary" to create a

compensable claim for breach of trust. As for the passages

quoted from Justice Ginsburg's concurring opinion in United

States v. White Mountain Apache, 537 U.S. 465,480-481

(2003), Justice Ginsburg nowhere stated or indicated that the

absence of the term "trust" from a statute a.utomatically

makes it doubtful that the statute creates a trust relationship.

_________________________

3 ........See Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law §

5.05[1], at 429-30 (Nell Jessup Newton et at., cds., 2005)

(" [W]hile the presence of the word 'trust' in a statute by

.......itself is neither necessary nor sufficient to create a

compensable claim, statutory or regulatory language using

terms normally associated with trust or fiduciary law will be

given great weight in the analysis."), cited at Woljchild, 559

F.3d at 1238.

........................................................12...............................................

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


11/20/2009 12:08 FAX 18665670221


Gonzalez


141 022/035


Rather, in discussing the Courtts holding in the companion

case of United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003),

in which she wrote the opinion for the Court. Justice

Ginsburg observed that the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of

1938 ("IMLA") and its implementing regulations, at issue in

Navajo Nation, "lacked the characteristics that typify a

genuine trust relationship: Those provisions assigned the

Secretary of the Interior no managerial role over coal

leasing; they did not even establish the 'limited trust

relationshipt that existed under the law at issue in Mitchell 1."

White Mountain Apache, 537 U.S. at 480-481.

By contrast, the Appropriations Acts specifically gave

the Secretary discretionary control and supervision over the

expenditure of the funds appropriated by Congress, and by

implication, over the use and occupancy of the land and

.................................................................13...............................................

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


11/20/2009 12:09 FAX 18885870221


Gonzalez


141 023/035


other property purchased with those funds, for the benefit of

the loyal Mdewakantons and their families, see, e.g., 1890

Act, 26 Stat. at 349 Coo ••• to be expended by the Secretary

of the Interior as in his judgment he may think best, for such

lands, agricultural implements, buildings, seeds, cattle,

horses, food, or clothing as may be deemed best in me case

of each of these Indians or families thereof'). and further

directed the Secretary that the appropriated funds should be

“so expended that each of the Indians in this paragraph

mentioned shall receive, as nearly as practicable, an equal

amount in value of this appropriation." See 1889 and 1890

Acts, 25 Stat. at 992-93; 26 Stat. at 349. Thus, unlike the

IMLA in Navajo Nation, the Appropriations Acts clearly

gave the Secretary a comprehensive "managerial role" over

the appropriated monies and the property purchased with

....................................................14..................................................

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


11/20/2008 12:08 FAX 18885870221


Gonzalez


I4J 024/035


those monies.

Moreover, this Court in Mitchell II made it clear that its

construction of the statutes and regulations at issue in that

case as having created a trust and fiduciary obligation on the

part of the Government was "reinforced by the undisputed

existence of a general trust relationship between the United

States and the Indian people." Mitchell 11,463 U,S. at 225.

The Court recognized that it had "previously emphasized 'the

distinctive obligation of trust incumbent upon the

Government in its dealings with these dependent and

sometimes exploited people.I" ld., quoting Seminole Nation

v. United States, 316U.S. 286, 296 (1942).

By contrast, while recognizing that "[ c ]onsistent with

the principle that there is a general trust relationship between

the United States and the Indian people,' [quoting Mitchell II,

.....................................................15......................................

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11/20/2009 12:09 FAX 18885870221


Gonzalez


@ 025/035


463 U.S. at 225], Interior Department officials often

characterized the 1886 lands as being held in trust for the

1886 Mdewakantons and their descendants," Wolfchild,559

F.3d at 1248, the Federal Circuit ruled that the "general trust

relationship" principle did not apply to the instant case

because the 1886 Mdewakantons and their descendants were

not a tribe of Indians. See id ("[T]he 1886 Mdewakantons

were not a tribe of Indians, but rather were viewed as a group

of individuals who had severed their tribal relations and were

in need of assistance."). The "general trust relationship"

principle, however, applies to all "the Indian people,"

Mitchell II 463 U.S. at 225, including individual Indians, not

just tribes, and would certainly extend to the 1886

Mdewakantons and their descendants. Again, the Federal

Circuit's refusal to recognize the applicability of the "general

....................................................16..........................................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11/20/2009 12:10 FAX 18885870221


Gonzalez


@ 028/035


trust relationship" principle to alllndians, not just tribes,

conflicts with Mitchell II.

The Federal Circuit's decision also conflicts with this

Court's pronouncement in White Mountain Apache that

"[w]here as in Mitchell II, 463 U.S. 206, 225 ... (1983), the

relevant sources of substantive law create 'all of the

necessary elements of a common-law trust,' there is no need

to look elsewhere for the source of a trust relationship."

White Mountain Apache, 537 U.S. at 475 n. 3. The Court of

Federal Claims, after quoting this passage from White

Mountain Apache, determined that "[t]he 1888J 1889, and

1890 Acts in combination have [the] three key features [of a

common-law trust] that show the creation of a trust."

Wolfchild, 62 Fed. Cl. at 540-541. First, the language of the

Appropriation Acts "functionally appoints the Secretary of


..............................................17........................................

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11/20/2009 12:10 FAX 18885870221


Gonzalez


~027/035


Interior to serve as the trustee to spend the funds on behalf of

the beneficiaries, the loyal Mdewakanton." Id at 541.

Secondly, the Appropriations Acts designated the loyal

Mdewakanton and their families (which the Secretary

interpreted as including lineal descendants) as the

beneficiaries of the trust. See id. at 541-542. Third. the

Appropriations Acts created a trust corpus that included

property, improvements to property, and momes. ld. at 541.

In reversing the Court of Federal Claims, the Federal

Circuit did not follow the approach of White Mountain

Apache in addressing whether the three fundamental

elements of a common law tru$t were present. Instead, the

appeals court focused on (1) the absence of any express use

of the term "trust" in the Appropriations Acts themselves,

Wolfchild, 559 F.3d at 1238; (2) the fact that each of the

.......................................................18.......................................

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11/20/2008 12:10 FAX 18885870221


Gonzalez


I4J 028/035



Appropriations Acts "was enacted as part of a much longer

statute that contained appropriations for payment of the

expenses of the Indian Department and for the support of

certain Indian tribes ... [which] contained no language

suggestive of a trust relationship," id. at 1238-1239; and (3)

the fact that "nothing in the legislative history of the three

provisions at issue in this case indicates that they were

designed to create a trust relationship." Id. at 1240.

As already pointed out above, the Federal Circuit's

reliance on the absence of the use of the term "trust"

conflicts with this Court's decision in Mitchell II. As for the

appearance of each of the three Appropriations Acts in

"much longer" appropriations statutes and the lack of any

legislative history that the Mdewakanton appropriations were

designed to create a trust relationship, these matters are

..............................................19........................................

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11/20/2008 12:11 FAX 18885870221


Gonzalez


@ 028/035


irrelevant under the approach outlined in White Mountain

Apache. Since (as the Court of Federal Claims correctly

determined) the "relevant sources of substantive law,"

namely the three Appropriations Acts themselves, "create all

of the necessary elements for a common-law trust," namely a

trustee, a class of beneficiaries, and a trust corpus, "there

[was] no need [for the Federal Circuit] to look elsewhere [.

such as context or legislative history,] for the source of a

trust relationship." See White Mountain Apache, 537 U.S. at

475 n. 3.


In sum, the OST respectfully urges the Court to grant

theWolfchild Petitioners' Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, not

only to resolve the conflict in the circuits pointed out by the

Petitioners, but also to correct the Federal Circuit's serious

deviation from the principles laid down by this Court in

................................................20...........................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------