## Facts

- Congress enacted Public Law 86-392 (1960), providing that the former Fort Apache Military Reservation would be held by the United States in trust for the White Mountain Apache Tribe, while reserving to the Secretary of the Interior the right to use any part of the land and improvements for administrative or school purposes.
- The Secretary exercised the reserved right of use over roughly 30 buildings and related property at Fort Apache, which the United States occupied and used for federal functions, including an Indian school.
- The Tribe alleged that during the period of federal use and control, the buildings substantially deteriorated because the United States failed to maintain, protect, repair, and preserve the trust property.
- The Tribe sought money damages measured by the cost to rehabilitate the property, invoking the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1505.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of a money-mandating duty, reasoning the 1960 Act created only a “bare trust.”
- The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the government’s actual use and exclusive control implied common-law trustee duties enforceable by damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1960 Act can be fairly interpreted to impose fiduciary duties on the United States to preserve and maintain trust improvements it uses and controls.
2. Whether breach of those implied fiduciary duties is compensable in money damages, satisfying the Indian Tucker Act’s requirement of a money-mandating source of law.
3. Whether the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over the Tribe’s damages action under 28 U.S.C. § 1505.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in a 5–4 decision and held that the 1960 Act gives rise to Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims over the Tribe’s suit for money damages.
- The Court concluded that the statutory trust language, combined with the government’s reserved and exercised right to use and occupy improvements, supports an implied fiduciary duty to preserve the trust corpus.
- Because a trustee’s failure to preserve property it controls is ordinarily remediable by compensation, the statute could fairly be read as mandating money damages for breach.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the Tribe’s damages claim.

## Legal Principles

- The Indian Tucker Act confers jurisdiction over tribal claims against the United States but does not create substantive rights; a separate statute or regulation must be fairly interpreted as mandating compensation for the damages sustained.
- A “bare trust” without specific duties generally does not support a damages remedy, but statutory schemes or circumstances reflecting federal control over trust property may give rise to enforceable fiduciary obligations.
- When the United States holds property in trust for a tribe and itself uses and controls trust improvements, common-law trust principles support an implied duty to act reasonably to preserve and maintain those trust assets.
- A statute may be money-mandating even without an express damages clause when the trust relationship and the government’s control make compensation the ordinary remedy for breach.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a statute placing property in trust for a tribe while reserving and exercising federal use and control of improvements can imply fiduciary duties to preserve the property, and that breach of those duties may be remedied by money damages under the Indian Tucker Act, establishing jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims.


United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003)