The Hoopa-Yurok cases in context

1950-2001

Introduction

n Nonmember Indians’ claims to tribal timber in the Short and related cases produced, over a period of 30 years, an urgent need for the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act.

n Now, Congress must act pursuant to Section 14(c) of the 1988 Act.

1950 Hoopa Valley Tribe Constitution approved

n 1933 Hoopa Constitution replaced

n A,B membership rolls [lists] approved; C roll in 1953

n Opinion: Rights of the Indians of the HVR (Feb. 5, 1958)

n Timber sales on Hoopa “Square” feasible after World War II

Short v. United States (filed March 27, 1963)

n Williams family hired Harold Faulkner, Esq.

n 1967--court directed 3,323 plaintiffs to intervene

n 1975 or later--528 more plaintiffs (Ackley, Aanstad cases, etc.)

Mattz v. Arnett (Supreme Court 1973)

n Klamath River Reservation still exists

n 1855 reservation was ideal for Yuroks

n KRR was added to the “Square” reservation in 1891

n Opinion: 412 U.S. 481

Short I (Court of Claims 1973)

n All “Indians of the Reservation” must share in revenues distributed

n No vested rights existed in 1864-91

n Extension of Square in 1891 gave additional Indians equal rights with those of the Square

n Opinion: 202 Ct. Cl. 870, portion at 486 F.2d 561

BIA implementation of Short I

n 70/30 split of revenues began in 1974 when certiorari denied

n 70% account “Indians of the Reservation” clarified in 1975

n “Gerard Plan” for Hoopa and Yurok tribes announced in 1978; later changed to “issue by issue” process

n “Reservation-wide” account replaces 70/30% accounts

Beaver v. Interior blocks Yurok organization

n Injunction: halts Yurok election

n Referendum rejects Gerard Plan

n Judgment: restricts BIA efforts to aid Yurok tribal government

Short II (Court of Claims 1981)

n Yurok tribe won’t be substituted in lieu of the individual plaintiffs

n Qualification standards for Indians of Res. based on HVT membership

n Opinion: 661 F. 2d 150

n Cert. denied 455 U.S. 1034 (1982)

Short III (Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit 1983)

n Motion to dismiss case denied

n Jurisdiction exists under 25 U.S.C. 407 (timber)

n A-E standards and “manifest injustice” exception approved

n No declaratory judgment intended

n Opinion: 719 F.2d 1133

n Cert. denied 467 U.S. 1256

Short IV (Claims Court 1987)

n Damages payable based on per capita distributions only

n No damages from Hoopa tribal government expenditures

n Plaintiffs have no right to “escrow” funds

n Opinion: 12 Cl. Ct. 36

Puzz v. Interior Department (N.D. Cal. 1988)

n BIA must run reservation and consult with all Indians of the Reservation

n Community Advisory Committee process established

n Hoopa Tribal Council advisory only

n Opinion: 1988 WL 188462

Congressional proceedings on Hoopa-Yurok Settlement

n House Interior & Insular Affairs Comm. Hearing on H.R. 4469 (June 21, 1988)

n Senate Indian Affairs Comm. Oversight Hearing (June 30, 1988)

n Congressional Research Service report to House Interior & Insular Affairs Comm., on questions re H.R. 4469 (Sept. 13, 1988)

n Senate Indian Affairs Comm. Hearing on S. 2723 (Sept. 14, 1988)

■ House Report 100-938 Part 1 (Sept. 16, 1988)

n House Judiciary Comm. Hearing on H.R. 4469 (Sept. 30, 1988)

n Senate Report 100-564 gives full explanation

Pub. L. 100-580, Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act (Oct. 31, 1988)

n Reservation divided when Hoopa claims waived

n Settlement Roll prepared based on Short standards

n Funds divided based on rolls (and waivers)

n Suits must be in Court of Federal Claims

n Act partly codified at 25 U.S.C. 1300i et seq.

Section 14(c) report, 25 U.S.C. 1300i-11(c)

n Secretary recommends to Congress after suits

n Additional appropriations needed to implement terms of Act

n “Any modifications to the resource and management authorities established”

n No judgment payable until after Sec. 14(c) report

Karuk v. United States (complaint filed 1990)

n Claimed rights in Square and Extension taken by HYSA

n Similar complaint filed by Ammon group (like Short plaintiffs) (1991)

n Similar complaint by Yurok Tribe (1992)

n All Yurok members also in Ammon (plaintiff groups overlap)

Short V (Court of Federal Claims 1992)

n Plaintiffs get interest on their damages because trust funds earn interest

n Opinion: 25 Cl.Ct. 772

Shermoen v. U.S. (9th Cir. 1992)

n Dist. court dismissed claims of Yurok plaintiffs and Resighini tribe

n HYSA unreviewable in case without Hoopa and Yurok tribes as parties

n Sovereign immunity not defeated by suing councilmen

n Opinion: 982 F.2d 1312

n Cert. denied 509 U.S. 903 (1993)

Heller, Ehrman v. Babbitt (D.C. Cir. 1993)

n Short plaintiffs’ attorneys seek share of Settlement Fund

n Dist. court enjoined part of HYSF payments

n Attorneys can’t get monies except in Court of Federal Claims, so Ct.App. dismissed

n Opinion: 992 F.2d 360

n Subsequent CFC case Duke, Gerstel v. U.S. settled

Short VI (Court of Federal Claims 1993)

n No damages for Hoopa $5,000 per capita authorized by HYSA

n Plaintiffs not entitled to escrow funds

n Heller firm not disqualified

n Opinion: 28 Fed. Cl. 590

Karuk Tribe v. United States (Court of Federal Claims 1993)

n Plaintiffs’ claims threaten Hoopa exclusive rights in HVR

n HVT can intervene to protect its interest under HYSA

n Opinion: 28 Fed. Cl. 694

Short VII (Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit 1995)

n Short IV, V and VI are upheld

n 2,612 plaintiffs (or their heirs) paid

n $23,561 maximum payment

n Opinion: 50 F.3d 994

Karuk Tribe v. United States (Court of Federal Claims 1998)

n Plaintiff tribes and individuals had no vested property rights taken by HYSA

n Opinion: 41 Fed. Cl. 468

Karuk Tribe v. United States (Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit 2000)

n CFC Karuk Tribe rulings upheld

n Opinion: 209 F.3d 1366

n Cert. petitions denied 523 U.S. 941 (2002)

Conclusion

n All court challenges to the Settlement Act have failed.

n Now, Congress must act on the Secretary’s “Section 14(c)” Report.