Doctrine

trust doctrine

The 1831 'ward and guardian' description became a trust relationship that courts enforce for damages mainly where a statute or regulation creates the duty.

Definition: Federal fiduciary duties to tribes; enforceable for damages only where a statute, treaty or regulation imposes them.

What happened

The trust doctrine is the idea that the United States owes special duties to Native nations. Its legal force has changed a great deal over time.

In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (January Term, 1831), the Cherokee Nation asked the Supreme Court for an injunction to restrain the State of Georgia. Chief Justice Marshall described tribes within the United States as domestic dependent nations and wrote that their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. That passage is the source of much later talk of a federal guardianship.

In United States v. Mitchell (Mitchell II, decided June 27, 1983), allottees on the Quinault Reservation sued over mismanagement of timber on their allotted lands. The Court held the United States accountable in money damages. It reasoned that federal timber statutes and regulations gave the government such elaborate control over Indian forests that a fiduciary relationship necessarily arose.

United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation (decided June 13, 2011) set limits. The Court held that a common-law exception to attorney-client privilege for trustees does not apply to the general trust relationship. It said the Government's trust obligations are established and governed by statute, not the common law, and that the applicable statutes and regulations control. Together these cases show a trust relationship that shapes how statutes are read, but a tribe seeking damages must point to a specific trust-creating statute or regulation.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 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.

Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831)
They may, more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations.Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831)
a fiduciary relationship necessarily arises when the Government assumes such elaborate control over forests and property belonging to IndiansUnited States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983)
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)

Research notes. Only three cases are summarized; later decisions (for example Navajo Nation, 2023) are covered elsewhere.

Who is doing the work

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Native-led Litigation and legal advocacy for tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, land and resources Give on their site Website
NDN Collective (LANDBACK Campaign) Native-led LANDBACK campaign (launched 2020; Mount Rushmore closure and return of Black Hills public lands), Indigenous… Give on their site Website
Indian Land Tenure Foundation (ILTF) Native-led Land recovery and control by tribes and individual Indian landowners Website
Decolonizing Wealth Project (Indigenous Earth Fund; California Tribal Land Return) Native-led Reparative philanthropy Give on their site Website

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

Connections

Applied in 18

Show all 18

Sources

No source is linked to this record yet. That is a gap we are working to close.

Kind: Doctrine
Confidence: Medium

Correct this record