## Facts

- Individual Indian allottees with interests in allotted lands on the Quinault Reservation alleged the United States mismanaged valuable timber resources through the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
- The allottees sought money damages for breach of trust, alleging failures such as not obtaining fair value for timber, inadequate forest management and reforestation, and excessive administrative charges.
- The allottees sued in the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act and Indian Tucker Act theories.
- In earlier litigation, the Supreme Court held the General Allotment Act created only a limited trust that did not itself authorize money damages, and the case returned for consideration of other statutes and regulations.
- On remand, the Court of Claims relied on specific timber-management statutes and implementing regulations governing sale and harvesting procedures, conservation practices, road building, rights-of-way, and proceeds handling, and held these sources imposed enforceable fiduciary duties supporting damages.
- The United States sought Supreme Court review, disputing both the existence of compensable fiduciary duties and whether the cited statutes and regulations could support a damages remedy.

## Issues

1. Whether the Tucker Act and Indian Tucker Act permit money damages for alleged breach of trust when the claim is founded on specific Indian timber-management statutes and regulations.
2. Whether those statutes and regulations create enforceable fiduciary duties in the federal government’s management of timber resources on allotted lands, such that breach supports monetary liability.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed that the United States may be held accountable in money damages for alleged breaches of trust in its management of forest resources on Quinault allotted lands.
- The Court held the cited statutes and regulations placed comprehensive, beneficiary-oriented management responsibility on the federal government, establishing a fiduciary relationship and defining its duties.
- The Court concluded that, because these provisions create trust obligations, they can fairly be interpreted as “money-mandating” under the Tucker Act framework.
- The Court rejected the view that only prospective or equitable relief was available, reasoning that trust-law principles ordinarily allow damages for breach absent contrary congressional direction.
- A dissent argued sovereign-immunity waivers must be unequivocal and that the statutes and regulations did not clearly authorize damages liability.

## Legal Principles

- The Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity for claims founded on statutes or regulations that can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation for resulting damages.
- A general or limited trust relationship, without substantive management duties, does not by itself support a damages claim against the United States.
- When statutes and regulations give the federal government comprehensive control over Indian resources for the Indians’ benefit, a fiduciary relationship arises and the government may be liable in damages for breach of those duties.
- Detailed federal responsibilities over timber sales, harvesting, conservation, related infrastructure, and proceeds handling may define enforceable trust duties.
- Trust-law principles support monetary liability for breach of fiduciary duty unless Congress has indicated otherwise; explicit “money damages” language is not required if the provisions are fairly read as money-mandating.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a comprehensive statutory and regulatory scheme giving the United States full responsibility to manage Indian timber resources for the beneficiaries’ benefit establishes enforceable fiduciary duties, and that breach of those duties can support money damages under the Tucker Act and Indian Tucker Act.


United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983)