page_title: United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe
section_title: Opinion of the Court
hierarchical_section_title: United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe / Supreme Court / Opinion of the Court
caption_attribution_description: Associate Justice David Souter of the US Supreme Court Deutsch: Richter David Souter Español: El Juez David Souter, circa 1990 Polski: David Hackett Souter
context_page_description: United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 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.
context_section_description: 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. Souter then noted the difference between a "limited" or bare trust obligation, as was outlined in United States v. Mitchell I (Mitchell I), and those which could impose fiduciary duties and carry monetary damages, as outlined in United States v. Mitchell II (Mitchell II). 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. 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.
  Souter stated that the 1960 act set up a trust in the same manner as Mitchell I and then went beyond that to allow the United States to use the land and buildings for a school and administrative purposes. This control was at least as great as that exercised over the timber in Mitchell II. Since the government had exclusive use and control of the property, it could "not allow it to fall into ruin on his watch."
  The three defenses presented by the United States were deemed without merit. First, the concept that the 1960 act "carved out" the buildings used by the government goes against the plain language of the statute. Second, the fact that the statute does not explicitly state that the government is subject to monetary damages is also without merit. Souter noted that, were the court to accept that reasoning, it would require that the court to overturn Mitchell II, which it was not prepared to do. Instead, the court will continue to use a "fair inference" from the law to determine if damages are authorized. Finally, the United States argued that the only appropriate relief would be injunctive relief instead of damages. Souter stated that this was clearly wrong and merely postponed the cost to the government to repair the buildings.
  The court affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court and remanded it to the Court of Federal Claims for actions consistent with the ruling.  Souter was joined in the majority opinion by Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
caption: Justice Souter, the author of the majority opinion
exif: {"Image Orientation": "Horizontal (normal)", "Image XResolution": "150", "Image YResolution": "150", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Image Software": "GIMP 2.8.16", "Image DateTime": "2019:03:03 19:03:46", "Image ExifOffset": "146", "Thumbnail Compression": "JPEG (old-style)", "Thumbnail XResolution": "72", "Thumbnail YResolution": "72", "Thumbnail ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "EXIF ExifVersion": "0210", "EXIF FlashPixVersion": "0100", "EXIF ColorSpace": "sRGB", "EXIF ExifImageWidth": "383", "EXIF ExifImageLength": "496"}