October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1067
Does voluntary control of trust property create a fiduciary duty?
The tribe seeks damages for building decay. The government denies any duty to maintain them.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Brauchli argued voluntary control creates fiduciary obligations.
Mr. Garre argued the government does not use the property.
Mr. Garre stated the government is not required to benefit the tribe.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 37-1 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 37-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 9-7 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 9-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 27-27
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Congress placed former Fort Apache buildings in trust for the tribe. The government later took voluntary control of these structures. The tribe claims this action created a duty to maintain them. The government argues no such duty exists.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 9-7 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 9-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 27-27
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 2, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-35
What each side wants
The tribe wants compensation for the decayed buildings.
The government wants to avoid paying for maintenance.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 9-7 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 9-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 27-27
What each side says
The tribe argues voluntary control creates a fiduciary duty.
The government argues mere trust status creates no duty.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 9-7 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 9-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 27-27
What the justices asked
Justice Souter asked what duties exist beyond preventing alienation.
Justice Stevens asked about the condition of the buildings in 1960.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 37-1 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 37-1
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal fiduciary duties. It determines when voluntary actions create legal obligations. The outcome shapes tribal property management standards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 9-7 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 9-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 27-27
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 37-1 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 37-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-35
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 9-7 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 9-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 9-7 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 9-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 27-27
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.