October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1375
Does federal control of Indian property create a trust duty?
The Navajo Nation seeks damages for lease amendments. The United States denies a trust duty exists.
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. Kneedler stated the Secretary approved lease amendments in 1987.
Mr. Frye argued the Government has not accepted the Mitchell II principle.
Mr. Frye stated federal control of Indian property implies trust duties.
Mr. Kneedler argued the tribe knew the substance of the Secretary's actions.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-17 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 19-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether federal control of Indian property creates a trust duty. The Navajo Nation argues this control implies such duties. The United States disputes this legal principle.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-17 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-17
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 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 19-21
What each side wants
The United States wants the Court to reject the trust duty claim.
The Navajo Nation wants the Court to affirm the trust duty principle.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-17 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-17
What each side says
The United States argues the tribe knew the substance of the Secretary's actions.
The Navajo Nation argues federal control of Indian property necessarily implicates trust duties.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-17 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-17
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked if the tribe knew the substance of the Secretary's actions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 19-21
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal trust duties. It determines the legal standard for Indian property management. It shapes future claims for damages by tribes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-17 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-17
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 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 19-21
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 27, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-17 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-17 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-17
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.