## Facts

- The Pueblo of Jemez, a federally recognized tribe, asserted aboriginal title to portions of the Valles Caldera area in New Mexico, including Banco Bonito and certain sacred sites associated with Redondo Peak.
- Congress issued the 1860 Baca grant to private heirs; Congress later authorized acquisition of those interests, and the United States obtained legal title when the Valles Caldera National Preserve was created.
- In 2012, the Pueblo sued the United States under the Quiet Title Act (QTA), claiming aboriginal title to land within the Preserve; a private utility intervened as a defendant.
- After an earlier appellate remand, the district court held a 21-day bench trial.
- The district court rejected a Preserve-wide aboriginal-title claim for failure to prove exclusive use and occupancy across the full area.
- The district court found the Pueblo had established aboriginal title to Banco Bonito during roughly the early 1400s through 1650, based on long-term occupation and use.
- The district court nevertheless ruled that the Pueblo later lost aboriginal title to Banco Bonito because the Pueblo did not continuously use the area “to the exclusion” of other tribes after 1650.
- After trial, the Pueblo sought to press aboriginal-title claims to additional discrete subareas, including “Paramount Shrine Lands”; the district court declined to consider those areas, concluding they were not timely or clearly identified as distinct property claims.

## Issues

1. Whether aboriginal title to Banco Bonito, once established, can be lost solely because other tribes used the land after 1650, absent proof of abandonment or sovereign extinguishment.
2. Whether the district court properly refused to consider (or reconsider) a distinct aboriginal-title claim to the Paramount Shrine Lands due to inadequate, untimely notice of the specific property claimed.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling that the Pueblo had lost aboriginal title to Banco Bonito.
- The court held that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard by treating post-establishment exclusivity as a continuing requirement for maintaining aboriginal title.
- The court concluded the record did not show abandonment of Banco Bonito by the Pueblo and did not show clear extinguishment by the United States.
- The court affirmed the district court’s denial of reconsideration and refusal to entertain a late-defined, discrete claim to the Paramount Shrine Lands.
- The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Aboriginal title is established by a tribe’s actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a long time.
- Once aboriginal title is established, it persists unless it is (1) abandoned by the tribe or (2) extinguished by clear sovereign action.
- The “exclusivity” requirement primarily governs the showing needed to prove aboriginal title initially; later shared or overlapping use by other tribes does not, by itself, defeat already-established aboriginal title.
- In QTA litigation, the claimant must provide timely, clear notice of the specific property interests and boundaries being asserted; late efforts to recast or subdivide the claimed area may be rejected under ordinary case-management standards.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that the Pueblo’s established aboriginal title to Banco Bonito could not be deemed lost merely due to later nonexclusive use by other tribes, absent abandonment or clear sovereign extinguishment, but it upheld the district court’s refusal to consider a late-asserted, distinct claim to the Paramount Shrine Lands for lack of timely notice.


Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 63 F.4th 881 (10th Cir. 2023)