Opinion ID: 201444
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the land was transferred

Text: 22 In its complaint, the Wampanoag Tribe sought, among other things, possession of the subject land, damages, disgorgement of any unjust enrichment as a result of the illegal taking of the subject lands, and a declaration that the State authorized the taking of the subject lands from the ancestors of the Tribe in violation of federal and state common law and in violation of the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act (the Indian Nonintercourse Act), 25 U.S.C. § 177. On appeal, the Tribe reasserts that the Settlement Act does not bar their claims to the subject land because the Tribe's right to use and occupy the land was never transferred. The State maintains that the Settlement Act extinguished the Tribe's claims because the land can be found to have been transferred under the Settlement Act's broad definition of a transfer. We find that the provisions of the Settlement Act bar the Tribe's land claims. 6 23
24 In provisions pertinent to this dispute, the Settlement Act provides for the ratification of various transfers of land and natural resources, extinguishment of aboriginal title, and the elimination of any further Indian claims arising subsequent to the transfer to land and natural resources in Rhode Island. Specifically, the Settlement Act ratified any transfer of land or natural resources located anywhere within the State of Rhode Island outside the town of Charlestown from, by, or on behalf of any Indian, Indian nation, or tribe of Indians as congressionally approved as of the date of the transfer. 25 U.S.C. § 1712(a)(1). The Act also provided for ratification of any transfers of land or resources located within the town of Charlestown. Id. § 1705(a)(1). The Settlement Act defines a transfer as including, but not limited to, any sale, grant, lease, allotment, partition, or conveyance, any transaction the purpose of which was to effect a sale, grant lease, allotment, partition, or conveyance, or any event or events that resulted in a change of possession or control of land or natural resources.  Id. § 1702(j) (emphasis added). 25 The Act then extinguished any Indian claims of aboriginal title to all such property as of the date of the transfer. Id. §§ 1705(a)(2), 1712(a)(2). The Settlement Act also provided that: 26 by virtue of the approval of such transfers of land or natural resources effected by this subsection or an extinguishment of aboriginal title effected thereby, all claims against the United States, any State or subdivision thereof, or any other person or entity, by any such Indian, Indian nation, or tribe of Indians, arising subsequent to the transfer and based upon any interest in or rights involving such land or natural resources ( including but not limited to claims for trespass or claims for use and occupancy ), shall be regarded as extinguished as of the date of the transfer. 27 Id. § 1712(a)(3) (emphasis added). 28 The Settlement Act included an exception to these provisions that section 1712 would not apply to any claim, right, or title of any Indian, Indian nation, or tribe of Indians that is asserted in an action commenced in a court of competent jurisdiction within one hundred and eighty days of the Settlement Act's enactment. Id. § 1712(b). 29 The Wampanoags contend that following the transfer of land to Captain Willett in 1661, the Tribe never transferred their interest in the remaining portion of land which was reserved for them in the deed. Therefore, the Wampanoags argue, the Settlement Act does not apply to their land claim. In bringing this suit, however, the Wampanoag Tribe has declared that it has been wrongfully dispossessed of these lands. The Settlement Act's broad definition of transfer includes a catchall — any event or events that resulted in a change of possession or control, Id. § 1702(j) — which shows Congress's intent to include a situation such as this one, where the Wampanoags clearly had an Indian claim to the land long ago and now cease to possess the land. In addition, the Settlement Act ratified any transfer of land from, by, or on behalf of any Indian, Indian nation, or tribe of Indians. Id. §§ 1705(a)(1), 1712(a)(1) (emphasis added). This would certainly encompass the Wampanoag Tribe of Indians. We therefore agree with the district court's conclusion that this broad language precludes claims such as those asserted by the Wampanoags in this case. 30 The Settlement Act left a brief window in which claims such as the Wampanoags' could be brought. Id. § 1712(b). However, because the Wampanoags failed to bring their claims within the 180-day statute of limitation period provided for in section 1712(b), they are now barred from asserting the claims presented in this suit. 31