## Facts

- The Shoshone Tribe pursued a claim before the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) for loss of aboriginal title to land in several Western states.
- The ICC determined the Tribe’s aboriginal title had been extinguished and entered a monetary award (approximately $26 million), later affirmed by the Court of Claims and certified for payment.
- By statute, certification automatically appropriated the award, and the United States deposited the funds in an interest-bearing trust account in the Treasury for the Tribe.
- Federal law required the Secretary of the Interior, after consulting with the Tribe, to submit a congressional distribution plan; no plan was submitted due to the Tribe’s refusal to cooperate.
- The United States brought a federal trespass action against Mary and Carrie Dann for grazing livestock without permits on land covered by the ICC proceeding.
- The Danns defended on the ground that they held aboriginal title, so federal grazing permits were not required.
- The district court held the ICC proceeding extinguished aboriginal title and barred relitigation of title in the trespass case.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding “payment” under ICCA § 22(a) had not occurred because the funds had not been distributed under a congressional plan.

## Issues

1. Whether “payment” under § 22(a) of the Indian Claims Commission Act occurs upon appropriation and deposit of the award in a Treasury trust account for the tribe, or only upon congressional approval and implementation of a distribution plan.
2. Whether such “payment” operates as a “full discharge” of the United States from further claims concerning the matters resolved by the ICC, precluding individual tribal members from asserting aboriginal title as a defense in a federal trespass action.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held that “payment” under ICCA § 22(a) occurred when the award funds were appropriated and deposited into a Treasury account for the Tribe.
- Because payment occurred, § 22(a) discharged the United States from further claims “touching” the controversy resolved by the ICC.
- The ICC judgment therefore barred the Danns from reasserting aboriginal title as a defense to the trespass action.

## Legal Principles

- Under ICCA § 22(a), payment of a finally determined ICC claim constitutes a full discharge of the United States from all claims and demands touching the matters involved in the controversy.
- For § 22(a) purposes, payment is satisfied when the United States appropriates the judgment amount and places it in a Treasury trust account for the tribe, even if no distribution plan has been approved or implemented.
- Payment that discharges the debtor is distinct from post-judgment administration of tribal funds; delays in developing or approving a distribution plan do not undo discharge once funds are set aside for the tribal beneficiary.
- An ICC adjudication resolving extinguishment of aboriginal title is preclusive as to the tribe and its members in later litigation concerning the same land claim.

## Conclusion

The Court held that depositing an appropriated ICC award into a Treasury trust account for the tribe constitutes “payment” under ICCA § 22(a), fully discharging the United States and precluding individual tribal members from relitigating aboriginal title in defense of a federal trespass action.


United States v. Dann, 470 U.S. 39 (1985)