The Short cases in context
1950-2001

---

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 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.)

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 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
• “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 organization

• 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 proceedings 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)

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.
• Senate Report 100-564 gives full explanation

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 Cir. 1992)

• Dist. 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. Cir. 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.

 

Click Here for more on Schlosser's Law Files

Click Here for the Office of Tribal Attorney