Court case

United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation

The Court let the government keep its legal advice privileged from a tribe in 2011, because the Indian trust differs from a private trust.

Citation
564 U.S. 162 (2011)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
2011
Nations
Jicarilla Apache Nation
Treaty at issue
none
Effect on land rights
eroded

What happened

The Jicarilla Apache Nation's reservation contains natural resources developed under statutes administered by the Interior Department. The United States holds the proceeds in trust for the Tribe.

The Tribe filed a breach-of-trust action in the Court of Federal Claims, seeking money damages for the government's alleged mismanagement of its trust funds. During discovery the Tribe moved to compel production of certain documents. The government released some but claimed attorney-client privilege for others.

The claims court held that communications about managing the trust funds fall within a "fiduciary exception" to the privilege. Under that exception, which courts have applied to common-law trusts, a trustee who obtains legal advice about running the trust cannot use the privilege against the beneficiaries. The Federal Circuit agreed that the government's trust relationship with tribes was similar enough to a private trust.

On June 13, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed. Justice Alito wrote that the exception "does not apply to the general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes." The Court said the government's trust obligations to tribes "are established and governed by statute, not the common law," and that in carrying out its statutory duties the government acts "pursuant to its sovereign interest in the execution of federal law," not as a private trustee. Government attorneys, it noted, are paid from congressional appropriations at no cost to the Tribe. Justice Ginsburg concurred in the judgment, joined by Justice Breyer. Justice Sotomayor dissented.

Good to know. The ruling concerns access to privileged documents in a damages suit, not whether the trust funds were mismanaged.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. The fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege does not apply to the general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes.United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162 (2011) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. The Government's trust obligations to the tribes are established and governed by statute, not the common lawUnited States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162 (2011) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. the Government acts not as a private trustee, but pursuant to its sovereign interest in the execution of federal lawUnited States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162 (2011) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The ruling concerns discovery of privileged documents in a damages suit, not whether the trust funds were mismanaged. The comparison to Navajo Nation (2003) in the old text was removed; the opinion does cite Navajo Nation, but the link to "limiting breach-of-trust claims" is the old writer's characterization. Only the syllabus and opening passage were read in full.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 2

Policy era 1

Nations named 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/162/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
The fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege does not apply to the general trust relationship between the United States and tribes, which is defined by statute and exercised in the government's sovereign capacity.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record