Cobell v. Salazar

Cobell v. Salazar
United States Federal Government · Public domain · source
Name	Cobell v. Salazar
Court	United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Full name	Elouise Cobell v. Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior
Date filed	1996
Decided	2009 (settlement)
Citations	Civil Action No. 96–1285 (RMC)
Judges	Reggie B. Walton
Outcome	Settlement resolving trust accounting claims

Cobell v. Salazar was a landmark civil class action concerning alleged mismanagement of Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust accounts held by the United States Department of the Interior and administered by the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The suit, initiated by Elouise Cobell and tribal plaintiffs, accused federal officials including Bruce Babbitt, Dirk Kempthorne, and Ken Salazar of failing to account for billions in royalties from leases on lands held in trust for members of federally recognized Native American tribes, such as the Blackfeet Nation, Nez Perce Tribe, and Navajo Nation. The litigation spanned litigation before judges including Emmet G. Sullivan and Reggie B. Walton, appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and involvement of the United States Department of Justice and the United States Congress.

Background

The roots of the case lie in fiduciary relationships created by statutes such as the Indian Trust Accounting Act and administrative policies of the Department of the Interior that governed royalty collections from leases on allotted lands under statutes like the General Allotment Act and treaties involving tribes such as the Crow and Sioux. Plaintiffs argued that tribal members and individual beneficiaries, including heirs of allottee families, were owed detailed accounting of revenues derived from natural resources managed by agencies including the Office of the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management. Prior administrative controversies involved officials like Fred Thompson (as Senator) raising oversight questions, and investigative reporting by outlets associated with figures such as Susan Q. Stranahan and entities like the Government Accountability Office highlighted discrepancies in accounting and recordkeeping.

Litigation and Legal Claims

Filed in 1996, the class action asserted claims under the Indian Tucker Act and theories of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and equitable accounting against defendants including successive Interior Secretaries such as Gale Norton and Bruce Babbitt. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, damages, and an injunction compelling an accurate historical accounting of IIM accounts for individual beneficiaries and tribes including the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Pueblo of Laguna. The litigation stage featured complex discovery disputes over millions of documents, involvement of experts from institutions like Harvard Law School and University of Montana School of Law, and motions addressing issues of sovereign immunity, statute of limitations, and class certification overseen by judges such as Gladys Kessler and Reggie B. Walton. Appeals engaged the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and prompted amicus briefs from entities including the National Congress of American Indians, the American Bar Association, and provincial officials from states like Montana and New Mexico.

Trial and Settlement

After protracted litigation, the parties negotiated a settlement announced in 2009 and approved by the trial court presided over by Reggie B. Walton. The settlement provided for a $3.4 billion fund to resolve accountings, individual claims, and tribal funds, creation of a land consolidation program administered by entities including the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians and the Bureau of Indian Education, and establishment of a scholarship fund and administrative mechanisms involving the United States Treasury and private trustee banks such as Wells Fargo. The agreement required Congressional approval for certain payments and prompted legislative attention from members of Congress including Tom Udall and Ben Nighthorse Campbell. The settlement also authorized an independent historical accounting process overseen by court-appointed experts and administrators drawn from firms and academic centers experienced in large-scale trust accounting.

Aftermath and Implementation

Implementation involved complex tasks: creation of claims processes administered by settlement administrators, distribution of payments to millions of beneficiaries, consolidation of fractionated trust interests via the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations, and oversight by the Secretary of the Interior and court monitors. Execution required coordination with tribal governments such as the Chippewa Cree Tribe and federal offices including the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office, which evaluated progress and compliance. Litigation over administrative details produced supplementary rulings in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and monitoring by advocacy groups like the Native American Rights Fund and policy scholars from Stanford Law School and Yale Law School. The Land Buy-Back Program led to consolidation of allotments, transfers to tribal control, and invocation of statutory mechanisms established under federal Indian law.

Impact and Legacy

The case reshaped discourse on federal fiduciary obligations to Indigenous beneficiaries and influenced legislative and administrative reforms in agencies including the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It prompted academic analysis in journals affiliated with Harvard University, University of California, Berkeley, and Columbia University and influenced subsequent litigation strategies by counsel such as the Native American Rights Fund and plaintiffs led by figures like Gerry Wasinger. The settlement catalyzed policy initiatives including enhanced auditing by the Government Accountability Office, expanded legal scholarship on trust law by faculty at University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, and public debates in media outlets linked to publishers like The New York Times and The Washington Post. Its legacy continues in ongoing discussions among tribal leaders, federal officials, and scholars about restitution, land consolidation, and the scope of fiduciary accountability under statutes and precedents shaped by earlier cases such as Seminole Nation v. United States and United States v. Mitchell.

Category:Native American history Category:United States class action lawsuits