Opinion ID: 449525
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Sue the United States.

Text: 23 It is well established that the United States may not be sued without its consent. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 769, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941). The Spaeths contend that the necessary consent for their suit against the United States is provided by section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act (A.P.A.), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702 (1982). However, as the district court held, A.P.A. Sec. 702 provides that, [n]othing herein confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702 (1982). The district court held that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2409a (1982) is such a statute. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2409a, in relevant part, provides that [t]he United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest   . This section does not apply to trust or restricted Indian lands[.] Because the United States claimed that sections of the Spaeths' farm are trust or restricted Indian lands, the court held that the Spaeths' suit against the United States is barred. 24 The Spaeths contend that contrary to the district court's holding, section 2409a is inapplicable because their suit does not seek to adjudicate a disputed title to real estate but merely seeks a declaratory judgment that the alleged title defects are illusory. We reject this distinction; section 2409a is directly applicable because the Spaeths' suit is essentially a suit to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest. The dispositive issue here is thus whether section 2409a's general waiver of sovereign immunity applies or whether instead section 2409a's exception to that waiver for trust or restricted Indian lands is applicable. We reject the district court's holding that section 2409a does not provide the requisite federal consent for the Spaeths' suit because the United States made an unsubstantiated claim that the lands at issue are trust or restricted Indian lands. Instead, we find that section 2409a does provide the requisite consent for the Spaeths suit unless the United States can prove that there is a substantial possibility that the lands in question are trust or restricted Indian lands. Newman v. United States, 504 F.Supp. 1176, 1179 (D.Ariz.1981). Because the district court did not address this issue, we reverse and remand for a resolution of this issue on the merits. On the record before us, and without the benefit of findings or briefing on these issues, we can only determine that there may or may not be a substantial possibility that the Spaeths' lands are trust or restricted Indian lands. 25 Although we express no view on the merits of the Indian claims, we believe there are a number of close questions which must be resolved after a full briefing from the parties before it can be determined whether the Indian claims to the Spaeth land are substantial, and thus whether the Spaeths' suit against the United States is barred by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2409a (1982). 26 First, there is the question whether there is a substantial possibility that certain sections of the Spaeth farm are trust or restricted Indian lands because at some point in the chain of title, an estate of a mixed-blood Indian owner of the land had been probated in state court and not by the Secretary of the Interior. The second title problem concerns whether there is a substantial possibility that certain sections of the Spaeth farm are trust or restricted Indian lands because at some point in the chain of title, the land had been transferred by a female mixed-blood Indian eighteen to twenty years old. 27 We address the probate jurisdiction problem first. To determine whether there is a substantial possibility that the Spaeths do not hold title to certain sections of their farm because at some point in the chain of title a state court probated the estate of an adult mixed-blood Indian allottee, the court on remand must address the following issues. First, the district court must determine if the Solicitor's 1979 opinion has a substantial basis in law. Under the government's view, the Solicitor's 1979 Opinion is merely a necessary result of Zay Zah, which is no longer reviewable. Because that case, under the government's view, determined that the trust status of an allotment is itself a constitutionally protected vested property right, all the aspects of trust status are vested property rights, including a federal probate upon the death of the allottee and the application of the federal age of adulthood for females instead of the state age of adulthood for females. However, although Zay Zah rests upon the theory that the binding trust agreement between the United States government and the allottee is a constitutionally protected property right which continues in full effect    until its term expires or the patentee accepts title in fee simple, Zay Zah, 259 N.W.2d at 586, that court's holding only concerned an allotment which was improperly tax forfeited. Extension of the court's reasoning to the question of probate jurisdiction over allotments may be erroneous in light of the longstanding distinction drawn by this Court and the United States Supreme Court that the Clapp Amendment was unconstitutional to the extent it attempted to end the tax exempt status of allotments so long as the trust status continued, Morrow v. United States, 243 F. 854 (8th Cir.1917), and see Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 32 S.Ct. 565, 56 L.Ed. 941 (1912), but constitutional to the extent it removed the restrictions on alienability of the allotment. United States v. Waller, 243 U.S. 452, 461-63, 37 S.Ct. 430, 432-33, 61 L.Ed. 843 (1917); United States v. First National Bank, 234 U.S. 245, 258, 34 S.Ct. 846, 849, 58 L.Ed. 1298 (1914); Choate, 224 U.S. at 672-73, 32 S.Ct. at 568-69 (The tax exemption and the nonalienability were two separate and distinct subjects. One conferred a right and the other imposed a limitation.). An implication of these decisions was that the Clapp Amendment validly ended the United States's responsibility to probate White Earth allotments held by adult mixed-blood Indians. 9 In light of the acceptance of this conclusion by the Solicitor in 1915, the Assistant Attorney General of the United States in 1917, see Opinion of F.J. Kearful, Assistant Attorney General to the Secretary of Interior, December 24, 1917, the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1920, Baker v. McCarthy, 145 Minn. 167, 176 N.W. 643 (1920), and the federal district court for the District of Minnesota in 1925, Bisek v. Bellanger, 5 F.2d 994 (D.Minn.1925), it may be that the Solicitor's rejection of these holdings in 1979 is erroneous and that Zay Zah must be limited to cases involving tax forfeiture of allotments. If the court determines that there is not a substantial basis for the claim that, notwithstanding the Clapp Amendment, the courts of the State of Minnesota did not have probate jurisdiction over White Earth allotments held by adult mixed-bloods who had not applied for a fee simple title, then the Spaeths are entitled to a declaratory judgment to this effect. 28 If the court, however, determines that there is a substantial basis in law for the Solicitor's claim of exclusive federal probate jurisdiction, then it must determine if the Solicitor's 1979 opinion to this effect should be applied retroactively in light of the adverse effects on innocent third parties and the significant risk of error in reprobating estates which were already probated in state court as long as seven decades ago. If the court on remand determines that there is no substantial reason for retroactively applying the Solicitor's 1979 opinion, then the Spaeths' title will be unaffected and they are entitled to a declaratory judgment to this effect. 29 If, however, the court determines that the Solicitor's 1979 opinion has a substantial basis in law, and that there is a substantial basis for applying the decision retroactively, then it must address whether, as a factual matter, there is a substantial possibility that the Spaeths' title will be affected. Although we find no direct holding on this issue, it appears that the Office of Hearings and Appeals will apply the laws of the State of Minnesota in probating White Earth allotment estates. See section 5 of the General Allotment Act, 24 Stat. 388, 389 (1887); McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U.S. at 465-66, 27 S.Ct. at 348-49; United States v. Parkland Co., 188 F. 383 (D.Minn.1911). If the same law will be applied for reprobating these estates, the chance that the heirs will be different may not be substantial. The Spaeths, at oral argument, indicated that several reprobates had been completed by the time of oral argument and that, in each case, the beneficial heirs of the allotment have been determined to be the same. The court on remand should inquire into the reprobating procedures and determine if there is a substantial possibility that the reprobating of allotments now held by the Spaeths will adversely affect their title. Additionally, the Solicitor's 1979 opinion only requires the reprobate of estates of mixed-blood allottees on the White Earth Reservation where the allottee did not apply for fee simple title to the allotment. Thus, even if some of the Spaeths' land was once held by a mixed-blood Indian and probated in state court, their title is unaffected if the allottee applied for a fee simple title. To the extent possible, the court on remand should address this factual prerequisite to application of the Solicitor's 1979 opinion. If the court determines that there is not a substantial possibility that the Spaeths' title will be affected, then they are entitled to a declaratory judgment to this effect. 10 30 If the court determines (1) that the Solicitor's 1979 opinion has a substantial basis in law; (2) that there is a substantial basis for retroactively applying the decision; and (3) that, as a factual matter, there is a substantial possibility that the Spaeths' title will be affected by the reprobating, then further inquiry into the ultimate merits of these issues is barred by the trust or restricted Indian lands exception of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2409a (1982). Because several sections of the Spaeth farm are affected by the probate jurisdiction problem, it may be that there is a substantial possibility that some of the sections are trust or restricted Indian lands but no substantial possibility that other sections are trust or restricted Indian lands. With respect to any section of land to which the Indian claims are substantial, suit is barred by section 2409a. With respect to any section of land to which the Indian claims are not substantial, the Spaeths are entitled to a declaratory judgment to this effect. 31 Next we address the age of adulthood problem. With respect to this problem, the court on remand must engage in an analysis similar to that outlined above to determine whether there is a substantial possibility that, notwithstanding the Clapp Amendment, the federal age of adulthood for females of twenty-one should have been applied since 1907 instead of Minnesota's age of adulthood for females of eighteen. The court must address whether there is a substantial legal basis for the claim that the federal age of adulthood should be applied, whether there is a substantial basis for retroactively applying federal law instead of the state law which has been applied since 1907, and whether, as a factual matter, there is a substantial possibility that the Spaeths' title will be affected. We express no view on the merits of this issue, although we note that it may be entirely distinct from the tax immunity and probate jurisdiction questions. 32 If the court determines that there is no substantial possibility that the Spaeths' title will be affected by the age of adulthood problem, then the Spaeths are entitled to a declaratory judgment to this effect. With respect to any section of land to which the Indian claims of title are substantial, further inquiry into the ultimate issue of who holds title to the lands is barred by the Indian-land exception of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2409a (1982). 33 To assure a full and fair resolution of the issues set forth above, the court on remand must allow the intervention of any interested potential Indian beneficiaries of the Spaeths' land, as well as any Indian rights groups who wish to join as parties or intervenors. Additionally, of course, the United States, as trustee for the unknown Indian beneficiaries, if any, must actively represent their interests. It may be that the United States or any potential Indian beneficiaries may wish to assert not only that their claims to ownership of certain section of the Spaeth farm are substantial, but that they are the actual title holders to these lands. If so, the court may proceed to determine the ultimate merits of these claims. See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 345 (1982); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1353 (1982); Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Co., 390 U.S. 365, 88 S.Ct. 982, 19 L.Ed.2d 1238 (1968); Cohen, Federal Indian Law, ch. 6, sec. A3a (1982). 34 In conclusion, we note that our analysis of the jurisdictional issues is affected by the extremely unusual facts of this case. For over a hundred years, the federal government has substantially changed its policy with respect to Indian lands within the White Earth Reservation. From 1906 to 1915, it adopted the policy that the allotments held by adult mixed-blood Indians were no longer held in trust, and were subject to the laws of the state. It argued for and received approval of this policy in state and federal court, and then followed this policy for over seventy years. The Spaeths relied on this policy, but in the late 1970's were told that the law and federal policy had changed and they no longer owned large sections of the land they had farmed, improved, and paid taxes on for over thirty years. 35 It may be that the government's new interpretation of federal Indian law is correct; if so, however, the government should be working with reasonable speed to lessen the impact of its policy changes on innocent third parties like the Spaeths. 11 In 1983, the Minnesota legislature passed an act which would have provided substantial assistance to any federal effort to solve the problem in the event federal legislation was enacted. 12 In 1984, however, despite the pressing need for legislation as a result of the federal government's policy reversal, two congressional bills to resolve the White Earth title problems failed. 13 36 Six years have now passed since the Solicitor's 1978 opinion; in light of the resulting adverse impact on innocent landowners like the Spaeths, we believe it is reasonable to require the government at least to litigate whether there is a substantial possibility that its reversal of longstanding federal law and policy has affected the Spaeths' title to their farm. 37