United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe

rdf:langString United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe

rdf:langString

rdf:langString United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe

rdf:langString Thomas

rdf:langString Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy

rdf:langString Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer

rdf:langString ;

rdf:langString United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe

rdf:langString Affirmed Circuit Court, held 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.

rdf:langString United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe

rdf:langString Souter

rdf:langString United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003), 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. The trial court denied the tribe's claim, but the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the federal government had a duty to take care of the property. The government then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the tribe could not make a claim without Congressional authorization. The tribe argued that the 1960 act created the trust and authorized damages. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, holding that the federal government used the property it held in trust, and that it therefore had a duty to maintain the property. Justice Ginsburg issued a concurring opinion, while Justice Thomas dissented. The loss led the government to settle with the tribe for $12 million. The buildings are managed by the Fort Apache Heritage Foundation and the case, along with several others define the Indian Trust Doctrine. The case has been widely discussed in legal literature and books, primarily in the area of Indian trusts.

rdf:langString Ginsburg

rdf:langString Breyer