Document: 476 U.S. 834 106 S.Ct. 2224 90 L.Ed.2d 841 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Florence Blacketter MOTTAZ, etc. No. 85-546. Argued April 22, 1986. Decided June 11, Syllabus Respondent inherited interests in three Indian allotments, title to which was held trust by the United States. In 1954, Government sold allotments States Forest Service despite lack of express consent from every person who an interest allotments. 1967, respondent expressed Bureau Affairs selling her lands, and BIA provided with a list allotment but did not mention that had already been sold. response specific inquiry 1981, informed then filed suit against Federal District Court, claiming jurisdiction under, inter alia, General Allotment Act 1887 Tucker Act, alleging sale void. She sought damages equal current fair market value interests. The Court ruled claims were barred general 6-year statute limitations governing actions Appeals reversed, holding does bar since question depended on resolving several preliminary issues case would be remanded Court. denied Government's petition for rehearing wherein claimed barred, limitations, 12-year period Quiet Title 1972. Held: Respondent's is "a civil action . adjudicate disputed real property interest," within meaning therefore Act's period. Pp. 841-851. (a) relief seeks confirms this characterization suit. What she declaration alone possesses valid asserts defective, order requiring pay today properly transfer title. provision it "does apply or restricted lands" operates solely retain States' immunity third parties challenging land Indians. Thus, when based its status as waive immunity. But plaintiff challenges assertion own behalf, applies. central condition given Act. By at very latest, notice recognize question; satisfied purposes commences date upon accrued, shall deemed have accrued "should known" claim. 841-844. (b) cannot avoid using quiet Government. grants federal district courts over suits seeking issuance involving Indian's rights his after he has acquired it. structure suggests waives only respect former class suits. That may subject-matter brought Indians mean waived cases where claim right. To permit under plaintiffs also could disrupt ongoing programs. 844-848. (c) fall scope thus appeal proper. 848-851. 753 F.2d 71, reversed. BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion unanimous Edwin S. Kneedler, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Derck Amerman, Minneapolis, Minn., Leonard A. Zolna, brief, respondent. Justice BLACKMUN 1 presented whether respondent's time barred. inclusion Chippewa National Minnesota. We hold "to 1972, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a), limitations. See 2409a(f). 2 * 1905, pursuant 1887, 24 Stat. 388, amended, 25 331 et seq. (1982 ed. Supp. II), Nelson 1889, 642, ancestors Florence Mottaz each received 80-acre Leech Lake Reservation Cass County, Minn.1 these eventually one-fifth one one-thirtieth other two. 3 early 1950's, some holders fractional petitioned Department Interior them sell their lands.2 On 30, 1953, Department's Office sent two forms, captioned "Consent Sale Inherited Lands." App. 42, 43.3 Accompanying forms letter read part: 4 "As stated before, owners requested land. Both timber, if any, appraised; soon we get sell, effort will made obtain buyer advertising bids. This unless high bid to, more than, appraised value. If no reply you ten (10) days, assumed objection sale." Id., 15. 5 indicated $420.50 $605.75. neither replied nor returned forms. any Service. 6 visited regional office May 1967 lands. Later month, realty officer informing 17. 1981 again reply, set forth currently and, addition, noted once Secretary part so-called "Secretarial Transfer" program. 44-45.4 II 7 345, §§ 1331, 1346, 1353, 2415, Fifth Amendment. 7. alleged sales "made without [her] permission were, therefore, illegal transfers are void." 8. raised four regarding sale: breached fiduciary duty lands first obtaining consent; acted negligently lands; deprived due process; taken public use just compensation. 10. represent both nationwide Minnesota-based similarly situated claimants. 8-9. 8 originally either "[d]amages monetary sum parcel illegally transferred" "rescission vesting individual names appropriate descendants, heirs assigns." After hearing, voluntarily dismissed, prejudice, requesting rescission. 12. 9 2401(a), section provides, pertinent part, "every commenced complaint six years right accrues." court cause learned Since deposition "clearly reveal[ed] knowledge 1954," Pet. Cert. 10a, suit, 27 sale, barred.5 10 reversed remanded. 71 (CA8 1985). While recognized somewhat opaque, rejected seeking, simply establish negligence breach duty: "must raising essential consent, receive payment land, accordingly void retains land." 75. construed equivalent return itself." Ibid. 11 such Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 129, 42 442, 66 L.Ed. 858 (1922), agent violation law " 'void confers wrongdoer,' id., 138, 444, quoting Waskey Hammer, 223 85, 94, 32 187, 189, 56 359 (1912), refused principles laches Indians' Ewert. Although Bluejacket consider statutes allottees, found 2401(a) because principle that, underlying void, concept 'accrues' point inapplicable allottee all along." F.2d, 74. 12 concluded resolution issues. It determine lacked authority 1954 unauthorized, consented actually following inferred. proved remand illegal, then, "[i]n light land's thirty passed force government rather than 13 en banc. petition, claimed, apparently time, recover established Record 16. argued Appeals' compel involved "of type typically Act," ibid., clearly petition. 13a. Because importance issue, granted certiorari 2409a(f), claims. 474 994, 405, 88 356 (1985). III 14 When consents sued, terms waiver sovereign define extent court's jurisdiction. Sherwood, 312 584, 586, 61 767, 769, 85 1058 (1941). particular, "[w]hen legislation contains constitutes immunity." Block North Dakota, 461 273, 287, 103 1811, 1819, 75 840 (1983). Neither discussed precise source various times before identified jurisdictional basis 1346(f) 2409a; Acts, 345 1353; 1346(a)(2). must decide which, conferred Appeals, relevant 15 U.S., 286, S.Ct., "Congress intended QTA provide exclusive means adverse claimants challenge property." Here, contests 1954. think falls governs "civil action[s] interest." description brings scope: 16 "At proceeding drop contrary, essence bottom line case. Her position remains name what pieces paper executed petitioner hearing purport do." Brief 3. 17 74, seek recovery share proceeds realized allegedly never distributed. A amount involve concession sole issue fairly compensated taking Rather, demands asserted 18 Nonetheless, governed because, terms, lands," interest. misconstrues exclusion, See, e.g., S.Rep. 92-575, p. (1971); H.R.Rep. 92-1559, (1972), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4547; Dispute Titles Public Lands, Hearing 216, 579, 721 Subcommittee Lands Senate Committee Insular Affairs, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 19 (1971). property's immunity.6 however, behalf beneficiaries trust, Forest. provides concerning provided, course, meets conditions attached Block, 283-285, 1817-1818; supra, 5, 7-8. provides: 20 "Any twelve accrued. Such predecessor knew should known States." 21 expressly Moreover, include Whether included States, undisputed longer having satisfies prong 2409a(f)'s accrual test.7 B 22 Respondent, carefully crafted characterizing II). "involving allotment." 345.8 Government, need reach applies does, begins run, conclude 23 Section types cases: (i) proceedings person, whole blood descent, treaty," (ii) "in relation to" descent allotted. contemplates allotments: allotment, see, Arenas 322 419, 64 1090, 1363 (1944), 'the patent it,' Scholder 428 1123, 1129 (CA9), cert. denied, 400 942, 91 240, 246 (1970), Pierce, 235 885, 889 (CA9 1956). strongly suggests, itself those original allotment. suits, "the thereto claimant party defendant" (emphasis added), while, latter cases, participation made.9 Accordingly, Affiliated Ute Citizens 406 128, 92 1456, 31 741 involves immunity, opposed grant courts, "authorizes, governmental for, allotments." 142, 1466 added). Naganab Hitchcock, 202 473 (1906) (sovereign precludes disposition lands). Indians, see n. 9, As noted, Congress [can] 1819. State Dakota sued officers responsible supervising riverbed injunction barring exercising privileges ownership bed. "officer's suit" precluded circumvent "carefully provisions necessary protection national 284-285, 1818. might QTA's Executive Branch most insistent, avoided, contrary wish Congress, unlimited number stale instituted." 285, officer's thwart Congress' determination option paying compensation thereby keeping even judgment, 2409a(b), disruption activities property. 26 poses similar dangers. Not seriously remedial clause judgment favor "shall same effect allowed approved [the Interior]." 345. permitted sue they entitled actual possession challenged pose precisely threat avoid. elect remedy require relinquish irrelevant: gives choice claimant. 2409a(b). enacting persons strictures.10 C At oral argument, Tr. Oral Arg. 23, 26. Nevertheless, during litigation, providing agree address possibility Court's rested did, Eighth Circuit appeal.11 Prior passage resorted Rather owned concede possessed them. 280-281, 1816; explicit statement 2409a(a) "apply affect sections 1346 [or] 1491 title,"12 Act-based like 29 regardless invoke courts' hear claims, clear falling Healy Sea Gull Specialty Co., 237 479, 480, 35 658, 59 1056 (1915), Holmes, writing absolute master to," "[j]urisdiction generally depends demanded plaintiff." "essential features," 481, 659, Healy's allegations infringement request characteristically law, fact measure fixed contract. 30 now invokes Allocation counterpart. made, seeks, do fit completed claimant's 7, 12-13. whatever still owns buy essence, legally cognizable yet occurred. 3-4. view lie views representing past acts, relief. Mitchell, 463 206, 2961, 77 580 IV rightly range special protections. plaintiffs, "[a] 'cannot lightly implied unequivocally expressed.' 445 535, 538, 100 1349, 1351, 63 607 (1980), King, 395 1, 4, 89 1501, 1502, 52 (1969). reflects congressional requires property, merits challenges. so ordered. For discussion program, F. Cohen, Handbook Law 612-632 (1982). 14, 1948, ch. 293, 62 236, 483, "is authorized discretion, application remove restrictions alienation, approve conveyances, Indians." No contemporaneous document appears record. late 1970's, identify potential affected 2415 pertains, among things, certain contract tort (In 1982, amended apply, well, tribes.) transfers" heirs. 97-954, (1982); County Oneida Nation, 470 226, 242-243, 105 1245, 1255-1256, 84 169 (1985) (discussing claims). arguments duties, 2415's dealing override 2401(a). With claim, stated: "By 'every .' 10a opinion). "applies tribe Indian" original). 10a. not, "permit 10a-11a urging exemption Solicitor excluding prevent abridgment "solemn obligations" "specific commitments" unilateral subject consent. (1972). Our finding prior filing rest 1953 failure days sale. least received. entirely possible occur knew, known, purchaser. reads full: "All unlawfully excluded lawfully virtue commence prosecute defend action, proper States; said try arising respective jurisdictions treaty (and defendant); decree effect, certified Interior, him, Five Civilized Tribes, Quapaw Agency: Provided, cases." corresponding 1353. invoked 1353 complaint. fact, used schemes. Begay Albers, 1274 (CA10 1983); Vicenti 845 1972), dism'd, 414 1057, 94 561, 38 343 (1973) (plaintiffs private parties; immunity). named defendant restrict access afforded defenses entitlements obviously many disputes relate Acts. Claims Limitation 96 1976, 2415(a), essentially tolls—for shows intend 2401, of, personal 2415(c). 240-241, 1254-1255, presumptively exempt state well. particular statute—the Act—that Under 1295(a)(2), decision "if based, title, except 1346(a)(1), 1346(b), 1346(e), 1346(a)(2) founded regulation executive department internal revenue 1291, 1292, 1294 granting appeals]." here 1346(a)(2), appeal, vacate directions 1631 Circuit. Ballam 898, 222, 222 (1986); Pacyna Marsh, 1078, 844, 886 (1986). our conclusion instead (Quiet claims), difficult unsettled how committed Circuit's outside treated. 97-275, pp. 19-20 (1981); 97-312, 41 (1981), 11; Circuit—1981, Hearings H.R. 2405 Courts, Civil Liberties, Administration House Judiciary, 97th (1981) (testimony James W. Geriak); Cihlar Goldstein, Dialogue About Potential Issues Patent Jurisdiction Circuit, APLA Q.J. 284 Drabiak, New 73 Ill.B.J. 218 (1984); Newman, Tails Dogs: Antitrust (1982) (all discussing context appeals raise antitrust whether, 1295(a)(2) explicitly disclaims 1346(f), limited jurisdiction, 39, bifurcated circuit Cf. 20. broad reference "sectio[n] 1346" opaque. "exclusive 2409a." exclusion 2409a can 1346. think, 1491—the supports 1346(a)(2)—the analogous provision.

Category: 1