d'Errico: Navajo Nation, known as an ‘Indian tribe’First in a series
By
Peter d’Errico
|
| The bottom line is that the United States uses 'trust doctrine' to control coal leasing on Navajo lands, while refusing any fiduciary responsibility that is not specifically designated in some other law or statute. This is not a 'trust.' |
In 1993, the Navajo filed suit against the United States, alleging the secretary’s actions constituted a breach of trust. The Court of Federal Claims found the secretary had “violated the most basic common law fiduciary duties owed the Navajo Nation” by acting in Peabody’s best interests rather than those of the Navajo. That court nevertheless concluded the breach of trust did not require any compensation, because “the trust relationship necessary for our jurisdiction does not exist.”
The record of the case shows the entire leasing arrangement was premised on federal supervisory authority, the core of the so-called “trust doctrine.” Under this doctrine, the federal government asserts paramount ownership of and power over Indian lands. The Peabody lease and rates were negotiated in this framework and only became valid after the secretary’s approval.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the corruption of administrative process by the secretary’s private meeting with Peabody, the question that arises from this case is, “What does the federal trust relationship mean if it provides a presumption of authority over Indian nations but carries no responsibility to them?”
A trustee is someone who holds property for the benefit of another. If the federal government pretends to control Indian lands as a “trustee,” how can it walk away from fiduciary responsibility when Indian lands are exploited for corporate profit? The Peabody lease is not the first or only example of this problem, but the Navajo case brings to our minds a new realization that the “trust doctrine” is not a viable basis for preserving Indian nations.
“Trusteeship responsibility” in federal Indian law is often said to have begun with John Marshall’s suggestion in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) that the relation of the “Indian tribes” to the United States “resembles that of a ward to his guardian.”
Courts have given the government wide discretion as “trustee.” The Supreme Court said in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903), “We must presume that Congress acted in perfect good faith in the dealings with the Indians. …” In United States v. Mitchell (1980), the court came up with the notion that the “trust” relationship might be “bare:” In other words, all power and no responsibility. This is what happened in the Navajo case.
Many people, Indian and non-Indian, have failed to understand the evolution of the “trust doctrine;” they see it historically as federal protection against state governments. This view produces considerable tension when federal actions undercut the survival of Indian nations, as in the Navajo case. It is time to see the “trust doctrine” for what it is; a relic of colonial thinking that allowed the federal government to push aside states in the rush to control Indian lands. The doctrine does not protect Indian nations from the federal government itself.
In the opening sentence of the court’s opinion denying relief to the Navajo, Justice Antonin Scalia refers to “the Indian tribe known as the Navajo Nation.” This is a linguistic move that displaces the external reality – the Navajo Nation, an indigenous people, originally free and independent of the United States – into a legal category – the category of “Indian tribe,” presumably subject to the power of the United States. This linguistic move sets up the cognitive framework that makes the court’s ultimate decision inevitable.
The bottom line is that the United States uses “trust doctrine” to control coal leasing on Navajo lands, while refusing any fiduciary responsibility that is not specifically designated in some other law or statute. This is not a “trust.” It is analogous to the old royal prerogative.
The underlying historical and legal relationship between the Navajo Nation and the U.S. involves two distinct parties dealing with each other as separate nations. It is an international relationship, negotiated and set forth in a treaty. The Navajo have now demonstrated the U.S. federal Indian law “trustee” system cannot protect the basic treaty relationship.
The U.S. assertion of power without responsibility violates not only the treaty, but also a variety of international rights and norms. Scalia’s statement, “This case is at an end,” applies only to the system of federal Indian law. It does not bind the Navajo Nation from taking this case to international tribunals. Indeed, the decision sets the stage for the Navajo to do this. That would be a good move.
Peter d’Errico graduated from Yale Law School in 1968. Staff attorney in Dinebeiina Nahiilna Be Agaditahe Navajo Legal Services, 1968-1970. Taught Legal Studies at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1970-2002. Consulting attorney on indigenous issues.
Classifieds
On Demand
-
Digital Copy
Receive Indian Country Today in digital format Read more »
-
ICT Insider
Sign up to receive ICT Insider E-Newsletters Read more »
-
ICT audio
Listen to audio programs from ICT Read more »
-
Video
Watch ICT videos right in your browser Read more »
-
RSS Feeds
Stay up-to-date with ICT Read more »
-
Mobile
ICT on your cell phone or PDA Read more »
Wednesday, May 13 at 3:10 PM Pashka wrote ...
Gandhi vs. the British Empire. Gandhi won. So will the Dene. Non-violent non-cooperation against colonial "Law".
21383462 Inappropriate? Alert Us!Thursday, Apr 16 at 9:24 AM WAMP1 wrote ...
once again I read a story that has been told many, many times you never get what you are promised or for that fact even close. We do need to unite and fight this cause and unite for each cause that is important to the lively hood of each TRIBE out there be EAST COAST,WEST COAST OR MIDDLE AMEERICA we are all one from the creator no matter what we need to stay stong to our beliefs give the people what they deserve not what you want to do
19686837 Inappropriate? Alert Us!Thursday, Apr 16 at 12:03 AM Desatoya wrote ...
The "Trust Doctrine" as with other, Native American, supreme laws of this nation has been eroded with each case brought before the courts. It was said by an elder many years ago, "It is better to negotiate rather than litigate disputes", which has proven a fact over time. What rights are ours, when we were made citizens in 1924, authorized limited sovereignty, wards of federal gov, homelands now owned by the federal government, and some tribes held captive by PL 280 and not federal jurisdiction?
19667272 Inappropriate? Alert Us!Wednesday, Apr 15 at 5:45 PM Wise Guy wrote ...
When did the Native Nations consent to the Supreme Court? When we will wake up and stop playing their game and come full circle to play our own game again. The Nations need to establish their own Intertribal Supreme Court founded upon our socities laws and values which protects our interests. When the Japenese surrendered, they kept their military, but called it a National Police force to usurp a treaty clause. Israeli citizens serve a couple of year in their military. We should do the same!
19651187 Inappropriate? Alert Us!Wednesday, Apr 15 at 1:50 PM Ivan Gamble wrote ...
Very well written, excellent thoughts. The Navajo Nation should begin to retire Peabody, SRP, all these foreigns companies that profit off our resources and know they may rely on SCOTUS to undermine the nation's authority. Time to move Peabody off the nation.
19634112 Inappropriate? Alert Us!Wednesday, Apr 15 at 10:54 AM Phoenix Navajo wrote ...
I agree, the case needs to now move to the international level, in addition, congress and the president need to realize that the system is a failure and native americans need to control what is on their land.
19620902 Inappropriate? Alert Us!Add a comment
Most Popular