Cobell v. Norton
Decision Date | 25 September 2003 |
Docket Number | No. CIV.A.96-1285(RCL).,CIV.A.96-1285(RCL). |
Citation | 283 F.Supp.2d 66 |
Parties | Elouise Pepion COBELL, et al. Plaintiffs, v. Gale A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Keith M. Harper and Lorna K. Babby, Washington, DC, Robert Meyer Peregoy, Ronan, MT, Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, Dennis Marc Gingold and Mark Kester Brown, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs.
Robert D. Luskin, Patton Boggs LLP, Tom C. Clark, Susan Virginia Cook, Brian L. Ferrell, Andrew M. Eschen, Charles Walter Findlay, III, Sarah D. Himmelhoch, Sandra Marguerite Schraibman, Connie S. Lundgren, Edith R. Blackwell, Washington, DC, John Charles Cruden, Annandale, VA, Lewis Steven Wiener, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, L.L.P., J. Christopher Kohn, Mark E. Nagle, Robert Craig Lawrence, Scott Sutherland Harris, Jo-Ann Shyloski and Barry Weiner, Henry A. Azar, Jr., Washington, DC, Terry M. Petrie, Denver, CO, Seth Brandon Shapiro, Jonathan Brian New, Sandra Peavler Spooner, David J. Gottesman, Peter Blaze Miller, Cynthia L. Alexander, Mathew J. Fader, John Stemplewicz, Amalia D. Kessler, John S. Most, Jennifer R. Rivera, Phillip Martin Seligman, Michael John Quinn, Gino D. Vissicchio, John Warshawsky, John J. Siemietkowski, John R. Kresse, Timothy E. Curley, Tracy Lyle Hilmer, Dodge Wells, Daniel Gordon Jarcho, Herbert Lawrence Fenster, Christina M. Carroll and Michael James Bearman, McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP, Elizabeth Wallace Fleming, Trout & Richards, P.L.L.C., B. Michael Rauh Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for defendants.
("Historical Accounting")
This matter comes before the Court after a forty-four day bench trial. Having undertaken a careful review of all the evidence presented and all representations made during that trial, of the record in this case, and of the applicable law, the Court now enters a structural injunction and appoints a monitor to oversee its implementation.
This memorandum opinion is the first of two opinions issued this date. The present opinion deals solely with the further relief ordered by this Court relating to the historical accounting owed by defendants to plaintiffs. The second opinion will treat the further relief ordered by the Court relating to the obligation of the Interior defendants to bring themselves into compliance with the fiduciary duties owed to plaintiffs as the trustee-delegate of the United States for the individual Indian money trust.
A decent respect for all who will be affected by today's rulings makes it appropriate that the Court should provide a full explanation of the reasons compelling it to order such relief. Only an appreciation of the full context in which the present trial emerged will make clear precisely why this Court has determined such relief to be necessary. Part I of this opinion provides a synopsis of this litigation to date. Part II examines the tradition of institutional reform cases, and explains how the present case fits within that tradition. Part III analyzes relevant separation-of-powers issues. Parts IV and V present in detail the Court's specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Part VI describes the relief ordered this date. Finally, in Part VII, the Court provides a brief explanation of the profound necessity for the entry of a structural injunction in this matter.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
PERRY-BEY v. CITY OF NORFOLK, VA., Civil Action No. 2:08cv100.
...was not an "institutional reform" litigation consent decree since it did not purport to manage an institution. See Cobell v. Norton, 283 F.Supp.2d 66, 86-108 (D.D.C.2003) (conducting in-depth review of structural injunctions and consent decrees in institutional reform litigation and describ......
-
Cobell v. Kempthorne
...Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081, 1086-94 (D.C.Cir.2001); Cobell v. Norton, 226 F.Supp.2d 1, 11-20 (D.D.C. 2002); Cobell v. Norton, 283 F.Supp.2d 66, 72-86 (D.D.C.2003). Those seeking Cliffs-Notes can even consult the Cobell v. Kempthorne Wikipedia entry (though the Court, of course, cannot ......
-
Ramirez v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
...in 2003 and again in 2005, seeking to overhaul the Department of Interior programs at issue. See Cobell v. Norton , 283 F. Supp. 2d 66, 87–95 (D.D.C. 2003) (" Cobell III"), Cobell v. Norton , 357 F. Supp. 2d 298, 302–07 (D.D.C. 2005) (" Cobell V"). While both injunctions would ultimately be......
-
Chickasaw Nation v. Dep't of the Interior, CIV–05–1524–W
...As the Nations have argued, this duty to account encompasses trust assets, including non-monetary assets. E.g., Cobell v. Norton, 283 F.Supp.2d 66, 176–77 (D.D.C.2003) (" Cobell X "), partially vacated on other grounds, 392 F.3d 461 (D.C.Cir.2004) (allotted lands themselves are the "trust c......
-
Veterans' Benefits and Due Process
...the content of the proposed injunction). 274. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). 275. Cobell v. Norton, 283 F. Supp. 2d 66, 212-13 (D.D.C. 2003), vacated in part, 392 F.3d 461 (D.C. Cir. 276. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 360 (1996) (citation omitted); seealso Dayt......