
Introduction
-
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.
-
Now, Congress must act pursuant to Section 14(c) of the 1988 Act.
1950 Hoopa Valley Tribe Constitution Approved
-
1933 Hoopa Constitution replaced
-
A,B membership rolls [lists] approved; C roll in 1953
-
Opinion: Rights of the Indians of the HVR (Feb. 5, 1958)
-
Timber sales on Hoopa “Square” feasible after World War II
Short I (Court of Claims 1973)
-
All “Indians of the Reservation” must share in revenues distributed
-
No vested rights existed in 1864-91
-
Extension of Square in 1891 gave additional Indians equal rights with those of the Square
-
Opinion: 202 Ct. Cl. 870, portion at 486 F.2d 561
BIA Implementation of Short I
-
70/30 split of revenues began in 1974 when certiorari denied
-
70% account “Indians of the Reservation” clarified in 1975
-
“Gerard Plan” for Hoopa and Yurok tribes announced in 1978; later changed to “issue by issue” process
-
“Reservation-wide” account replaces 70/30% accounts
Beaver v. Interior Blocks Yurok Implementation
-
Injunction: halts Yurok election
-
Referendum rejects Gerard Plan
-
Judgment: restricts BIA efforts to aid Yurok tribal government
Short II (Court of Claims 1981)
-
Yurok tribe won’t be substituted in lieu of the individual plaintiffs
-
Qualification standards for Indians of Res. based on HVT membership
-
Opinion: 661 F. 2d 150
-
Cert. denied 455 U.S. 1034 (1982)
Short III (Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit 1983)
-
Motion to dismiss case denied
-
Jurisdiction exists under 25 U.S.C. 407 (timber)
-
A-E standards and “manifest injustice” exception approved
-
No declaratory judgment intended
-
Opinion: 719 F.2d 1133
-
Cert. denied 467 U.S. 1256
Short IV (Claims Court 1987)
​​
-
Damages payable based on per capita distributions only
-
No damages from Hoopa tribal government expenditures
-
Plaintiffs have no right to “escrow” funds
-
Opinion: 12 Cl. Ct. 36
Puzz v. Interior Department (N.D. Cal. 1988)
-
BIA must run reservation and consult with all Indians of the Reservation
-
Community Advisory Committee process established
-
Hoopa Tribal Council advisory only
-
Opinion: 1988 WL 188462
Congressional Pleadings on Hoopa-Yurok Settlement
-
House Interior & Insular Affairs Comm. Hearing on H.R. 4469 (June 21, 1988)
-
Senate Indian Affairs Comm. Oversight Hearing (June 30, 1988)
-
Congressional Research Service report to House Interior & Insular Affairs Comm., on questions re H.R. 4469 (Sept. 13, 1988)
-
Senate Indian Affairs Comm. Hearing on S. 2723 (Sept. 14, 1988)
-
House Report 100-938 Part 1 (Sept. 16, 1988)
-
House Judiciary Comm. Hearing on H.R. 4469 (Sept. 30, 1988)
-
Senate Report 100-564 gives full explanation
Pub. L. 100-580, Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act (Oct. 31, 1988)
-
Reservation divided when Hoopa claims waived
-
Settlement Roll prepared based on Short standards
-
Funds divided based on rolls (and waivers)
-
Suits must be in Court of Federal Claims
-
Act partly codified at 25 U.S.C. 1300i et seq.
Section 14(c) Report, 25 U.S.C. 1300i-11(c)
-
Secretary recommends to Congress after suits
-
Additional appropriations needed to implement terms of Act
-
"Any modifications to the resource and management authorities established”
-
No judgment payable until after Sec. 14(c) report
Karuk v. United States (Complaint Filed 1990)
-
Claimed rights in Square and Extension taken by HYSA
-
Similar complaint filed by Ammon group (like Short plaintiffs) (1991)
-
Similar complaint by Yurok Tribe (1992)
-
All Yurok members also in Ammon (plaintiff groups overlap)
Short V (Court of Federal Claims 1992)
​​
-
Plaintiffs get interest on their damages because trust funds earn interest
-
Opinion: 25 Cl.Ct. 772
Shermoen v. U.S. (9th Circuit 1992)
-
District court dismissed claims of Yurok plaintiffs and Resighini tribe
-
HYSA unreviewable in case without Hoopa and Yurok tribes as parties
-
Sovereign immunity not defeated by suing councilmen
-
Opinion: 982 F.2d 1312
-
Cert. denied 509 U.S. 903 (1993)
Heller, Ehrman v. Babbitt (D.C. Circuit 1993)
-
Short plaintiffs’ attorneys seek share of Settlement Fund
-
Dist. court enjoined part of HYSF payments
-
Attorneys can’t get monies except in Court of Federal Claims, so Ct.App. dismissed
-
Opinion: 992 F.2d 360
-
Subsequent CFC case Duke, Gerstel v. U.S. settled
Short VI (Court of Federal Claims 1993)
-
No damages for Hoopa $5,000 per capita authorized by HYSA
-
Plaintiffs not entitled to escrow funds
-
Heller firm not disqualified
-
Opinion: 28 Fed. Cl. 590
Karuk Tribe v. United States (Court of Federal Claims 1993)
-
Plaintiffs’ claims threaten Hoopa exclusive rights in HVR
-
HVT can intervene to protect its interest under HYSA
-
Opinion: 28 Fed. Cl. 694
Short VII (Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit 1995)
-
Short IV, V and VI are upheld
-
2,612 plaintiffs (or their heirs) paid
-
$23,561 maximum payment
-
Opinion: 50 F.3d 994
Karuk Tribe v. United States (Court of Federal Claims 1998)
-
Plaintiff tribes and individuals had no vested property rights taken by HYSA
-
Opinion: 41 Fed. Cl. 468
Karuk Tribe v. United States (Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit 2000)
-
CFC Karuk Tribe rulings upheld
-
Opinion: 209 F.3d 1366
-
Cert. petitions denied 523 U.S. 941 (2002)
Conclusion
-
All court challenges to the Settlement Act have failed.
-
Now, Congress must act on the Secretary’s “Section 14(c)” Report
Mattz v. Arnett (Supreme Court 1973)
-
Klamath River Reservation still exists
-
1855 reservation was ideal for Yuroks
-
KRR was added to the “Square” reservation in 1891
-
Opinion: 412 U.S. 481
Short v. United States (filed March 27, 1963)
-
Williams family hired Harold Faulkner, Esq.
-
1967--court directed 3,323 plaintiffs to intervene
-
1975 or later--528 more plaintiffs (Ackley, Aanstad cases, etc.)