United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation (10-382)

argument 10-382

United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 4 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the United States’ argument against applying the fiduciary exception to Indian trust records?

John G. Roberts 0:02

We'll hear argument today in case ten three hundred and eighty two United States versus Hickory Apache Nation. Mr Shah.

Philip B. Shah 0:10

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, relying on common law trust principles applicable to private fiduciaries, the Federal Circuit imposed on the United States a duty to disclose attorney-client privileged communications to an Indian tribe. That abrogation of the privilege should be reversed for at least three reasons. First, reflecting the sovereign nature of the United States functions, the Indian Trust context lacks the factors essential to recognition of a private trust fiduciary exception. Unlike in a private trust, government attorneys and other federal officials owe an exclusive duty of loyalty to the United States, not to the beneficiary. The government pays the cost of trust administration out of appropriated funds, not out of the trust corpus.

Philip B. Shah 0:53

The government, not the trust, owns the resulting records, and the release of such governmental records, including to a tribe or individual Indian, is governed by specific statutes and regulations, as well as the Freedom of Information Act. not the common law. Second, the decision below conflicts with this court's precedents that distinguish the United States from a private trustee and that reject enforcement of duties governing the administration of Indian property that are not set forth by specific statute or regulation. The fiduciary exception to the attorney client privilege is premised on a private trustee's general common law duty to disclose trust information, but no statute or regulation imposes such a duty on the United States.

Elena Kagan 1:38

All of the statutes relating to these funds use the word trust. Not one statute defines trust and says in any way Um this is not a fiduciary relationship. To the contrary. In fact, most of the statutes require what would be consistent with fiduciary obligations And at least one of them that you rely on says but not limited to. So The issue before us doesn't involve a competing sovereign interest by the US. You've conceded that. in your circuit petition, the circuit below said this is not a case where there is an independent sovereign issue governing the US activities. Just explain to me what's the rationale? that would permit a trustee of a trust fund to withhold from the beneficiary the kinds of documents that relate to the management of the fund.

Elena Kagan 2:45

If the funds exist for the benefit of the Indian tribe, Why aren't they entitled to management documents? Doesn't make that you're not explaining.

Unknown 2:58

Mr Shaw, you might want to make your third point. You said you had three points Preliminarily, so why don't you make your third point and then respond to the question?

Philip B. Shah 3:07

Sure, Your Honor. Uh the third point is that the Federal Circuit's decision poses serious practical problems for the government. Because the general common law duty to disclose, which undergirds a fiduciary exception, Extends to all trust information without regard to the existence of litigation, excepting it implies a broad and burdensome disclosure obligation. For example, there are over 300,000 individual account holders, individual Indian account holders on top of the tribal account holders. If this court were to accept the fiduciary exception and thereby ratify the underlying rationale. Now, presumably, then any one of those or all of those 300 plus thousand individual uh account holders could simply call up the Interior Department and request all related trust records outside of the existing statutory and regulatory regime.

Philip B. Shah 3:57

Now, Justice Sotomayor, let me turn back uh to your uh set of questions. And and and let me start with the first point uh that you made, which is the the statutes here use the Term trust, why doesn't that connote some sort of broad fiduciary relationship? This court has made clear in its precedence, and it dates back to the Mitchell won, the first decision in Mitchell case, where Congress's use of the term trust, the court said, does not imply the full gamut of common law fiduciary obligations.