Opinion ID: 210370
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Existence of Trust Relationship and Trust Language

Text: There is no question the Treaty of 1849 establishes a general trust relationship. Specifically, the treaty states that the Navajo tribe was lawfully placed under the exclusive jurisdiction and protection of the Government of the said United States, and that they are now, and will forever remain, under the aforesaid jurisdiction and protection and that the Government of the United States shall so legislate and act as to secure the permanent prosperity and happiness of said Indians. Art. I, XI. While this general trust relationship is potentially reinforcing of the conclusion that the relevant statute or regulation imposes fiduciary duties, that relationship alone is insufficient to support jurisdiction under the Indian Tucker Act. Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 506, 123 S.Ct. 1079 (citation omitted). There must be specific rights-creating or duty-imposing statutory or regulatory prescriptions. Those prescriptions need not, however, expressly provide for money damages; the availability of such damages may be inferred. Id. In Apache, the Court found it significant that a statute provided that the Fort Apache Military Reservation would be held by the United States in trust for the White Mountain Apache Tribe. See 537 U.S. at 468-69, 474-75, 123 S.Ct. 1079 (quoting the Act of Jan. 24, 1923, ch. 42, 42 Stat. 1187). In Mitchell II, the statutes and regulations gave the government full responsibility to manage Indian resources and land for the benefit of the Indians. 463 U.S. at 224, 103 S.Ct. 2961; see also Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1079 (discussing Mitchell II ); Apache, 537 U.S. at 474, 123 S.Ct. 1126 (same). Even the statute at issue in Mitchell I went beyond the general trust relationship and established a limited trust relationship by stating that the United States does and will hold the land thus allotted . . . in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made. 445 U.S. at 540-42, 100 S.Ct. 1349 (quoting General Allotment Act); see Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 224-25, 103 S.Ct. 2961 (discussing Mitchell I limited trust relationship and general trust relationship); see also Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 504, 123 S.Ct. 1079 (discussing Mitchell I); Apache, 537 U.S. at 473, 123 S.Ct. 1126 (same). In contrast, the Court found that the IMLA of 1938 and its regulations did not satisfy this statutory and regulatory language threshold in Navajo III : Nor do they even establish the `limited trust relationship' existing under the [General Allotment Act]; no provision of the IMLA [of 1938] or its regulations contains any trust language. 537 U.S. at 508, 123 S.Ct. 1079. Justice Ginsburg emphasized that this lack of trust language set Navajo III apart from Apache. Apache, 537 U.S. at 479-81, 123 S.Ct. 1126 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (comparing existence of trust language in Apache statute with absence of such in Navajo III statute and regulations). Where the IMLA of 1938 and its regulations failed, however, the network of other statutes and regulations asserted by the Nation succeeds. The coal that is the subject of Lease 8580 and its amendments sits on the Nation's reservation lands, which are held for it in trust by the United States. Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 495, 123 S.Ct. 1079. The Treaty of 1868 established the Navajo reservation, setting a territory apart for the use and occupation of the Navajo tribe of Indians. 15 Stat. 667 at art. II, XIII. The Executive Order of 1884 added lands from Arizona and Utah to the Navajo reservation for Indian purposes. The Act of 1934 confirmed the exterior boundaries of the Navajo Indian Reservation, in Arizona, stating that the lands were to be permanently withdrawn from all forms of entry or disposal for the benefit of the Navajo. 48 Stat. 960 § 1. The Act of 1934 also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to accept relinquishments and reconveyance to the United States of such privately owned lands, which would be held in trust for the Navajo Tribe of Indians. Id. § 2. The Act of December 22, 1974 (Act of 1974), 88 Stat. 1712, 25 U.S.C. §§ 640d to 640d-31, confirmed that the lands described in the Act of 1934 shall be held in trust by the United States exclusively for the Navajo Tribe and as a part of the Navajo Reservation. 25 U.S.C. § 640d-9. Because [m]inerals and standing timber are constituent elements of the land itself, United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians of Wind River Reservation, 304 U.S. 111, 116, 58 S.Ct. 794, 82 L.Ed. 1213 (1938), and because there is no language severing coal from the land held in trust, the language stating that the government holds lands in trust for the Nation applies equally to the Nation's coal located on that land. Therefore, the substantive sources of law cited by the Nation contain explicit trust language. Because such language is necessary but not sufficient for an Indian Tucker Act breach of trust claim, we proceed to evaluate whether the network of statutes and regulations asserted by the Nation establishes specific fiduciary or other duties that can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation for damages sustained. Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 506, 123 S.Ct. 1079.