Indian Claims Limitations Act
Encyclopedia
The Indian Claims Limitations Act of 1982 (ICLA) is a federal statute of limitations
that governs some types of claims by Native American tribes and claims by the federal government on behalf of tribes.
Congress enacted the first statute of limitations applicable to Native American land claims in 1966. The limitation was six years for contract and trespass claims, and three years for tort claims. There was no limitation for land title claims. Pre-1966 claims were deemed to have accrued on July 18, 1966, the date of passage.
Under the 1966 act, pre-1966 trespass claims would have become barred on July 18, 1972. That day, Congress extended the limitations period for pre-1966 claims an additional five years, to July 18, 1977. The 1972 acts also broadened the scope of the applicability of the limitation, to all civil actions brought by Indian tribes or individuals based upon contract, tort, or trespass theories.
Under the 1972 acts, pre-1966 trespass claims would have become barred in 1977. That year, Congress extended the limitations period again, until April 1, 1980.
Under the 1977 act, pre-1966 trespass claims would have become parred on April 1, 1980. Four days before that deadline, Congress again extended the limitations period, until December 31, 1982. That act required the Interior Secretary to determine which claims should not be litigated, and submit proposals to resolve those claims legislatively by June 30, 1981. The Secretary submitted zero proposals by this deadline, but did identify 17,000 pre-1962 claims by 1982.
(NARF) initiated a class action
suit on behalf of all Indians and tribes with pre-1966 claims. On November 17, 1982, NARF obtained an order requiring the government to either submit a legislative proposal within 30 days or to initiate the 17,000 lawsuits itself before the statute expired. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
's decision loomed large in the Congressional debates.
One day before the pre-1966 claims would have become barred, Congress extended the limitations period a final time. This eliminated the statute of limitations entirely for some types of claims.
, within 90 days, identify all pre-1966 claims, identify which pre-1966 claims were potentially meritorious, and identify which claims were suitable for litigation or legislation; further, Indian tribes and individuals were given 180 days thereafter to comment on the Secretary's findings. The Secretary did so, and modified the list in response to comments. The limitations status of pre-1966 claims depends in part upon those lists:
The status of other claims does not depend upon these lists:
According to Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State
(1985) ["Oneida II"], the 1982 Act "for the first time imposed a statute of limitations on certain tort and contract claims for damages brought by individual Indians and Indian tribes." Oneida II, considering the Act, observed: "[T]he statutory framework adopted in 1982 presumes the existence of an Indian right of action not otherwise subject to any statute of limitations. It would be a violation of Congress' will were we to hold that a state statute of limitations period should be borrowed in these circumstances." The claims involved in Oneida II was included on the first list, although it need not have been because the Oneida's suit was filed in 1970, before the law.
In Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki
(2005), where the Second Circuit held that laches
bars all aboriginal title claims sounding in ejectment or trespass, the Cayuga's claim was on the supplemental list.
The initial list contained more than 17,000 claims by allottees relating to the White Earth Indian Reservation
in Minnesota
, totaling more than 100,000 acres. Congress responded with the White Earth Reservation Land Settlement Act (1986).
Statute of limitations
A statute of limitations is an enactment in a common law legal system that sets the maximum time after an event that legal proceedings based on that event may be initiated...
that governs some types of claims by Native American tribes and claims by the federal government on behalf of tribes.
Previous statutes
Previous statutes of limitations had only applied to suits by non-Indian landowners against the federal government.Congress enacted the first statute of limitations applicable to Native American land claims in 1966. The limitation was six years for contract and trespass claims, and three years for tort claims. There was no limitation for land title claims. Pre-1966 claims were deemed to have accrued on July 18, 1966, the date of passage.
Under the 1966 act, pre-1966 trespass claims would have become barred on July 18, 1972. That day, Congress extended the limitations period for pre-1966 claims an additional five years, to July 18, 1977. The 1972 acts also broadened the scope of the applicability of the limitation, to all civil actions brought by Indian tribes or individuals based upon contract, tort, or trespass theories.
Under the 1972 acts, pre-1966 trespass claims would have become barred in 1977. That year, Congress extended the limitations period again, until April 1, 1980.
Under the 1977 act, pre-1966 trespass claims would have become parred on April 1, 1980. Four days before that deadline, Congress again extended the limitations period, until December 31, 1982. That act required the Interior Secretary to determine which claims should not be litigated, and submit proposals to resolve those claims legislatively by June 30, 1981. The Secretary submitted zero proposals by this deadline, but did identify 17,000 pre-1962 claims by 1982.
Legislative history
In 1982, for the first time, the Interior and Justice Departments failed to endorse an extension. The Native American Rights FundNative American Rights Fund
The Native American Rights Fund, also known as NARF, is a non-profit organization that uses existing laws and treaties to ensure that state governments and the national government live up to their legal obligations...
(NARF) initiated a class action
Class action
In law, a class action, a class suit, or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued...
suit on behalf of all Indians and tribes with pre-1966 claims. On November 17, 1982, NARF obtained an order requiring the government to either submit a legislative proposal within 30 days or to initiate the 17,000 lawsuits itself before the statute expired. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a federal district court. Appeals from the District are taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (in case citations, D.D.C.) is a...
's decision loomed large in the Congressional debates.
One day before the pre-1966 claims would have become barred, Congress extended the limitations period a final time. This eliminated the statute of limitations entirely for some types of claims.
Provisions and interpretation
The Indian Claims Limitation Act of 1982 required the Interior Secretary to publish in the Federal RegisterFederal Register
The Federal Register , abbreviated FR, or sometimes Fed. Reg.) is the official journal of the federal government of the United States that contains most routine publications and public notices of government agencies...
, within 90 days, identify all pre-1966 claims, identify which pre-1966 claims were potentially meritorious, and identify which claims were suitable for litigation or legislation; further, Indian tribes and individuals were given 180 days thereafter to comment on the Secretary's findings. The Secretary did so, and modified the list in response to comments. The limitations status of pre-1966 claims depends in part upon those lists:
- Claims excluded from both lists expired on January 6, 1984;
- Claims on either list but not deemed suitable for litigation or legislation expired on November 7, 1984;
- Claims on either list and identified as suitable for legislation expired three years after the submission of legislation or a legislative report;
- Claims on either list and deemed suitable for litigation are exempt from any statute of limitations, unless de-listed by the Secretary, in which case they are barred one year from the publication of the removal;
The status of other claims does not depend upon these lists:
- Quiet titleQuiet titleAn action to quiet title is a lawsuit brought in a court having jurisdiction over land disputes, in order to establish a party's title to real property against anyone and everyone, and thus "quiet" any challenges or claims to the title....
claims are unaffected by the Act. The Supreme Court has held that the separate, 12-year statute of limitations contained in the Quiet Title Act applies to actions by allotteesAllotmentAllotment may refer to:* Allotment , a small area of land, let out at a nominal yearly rent by local government or independent allotment associations, for individuals to grow their own food...
under that Act. - Claims against the federal government are unaffected by the Act.
- Post-1966 claims are unaffected by the Act.
According to Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State
Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State
Oneida Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State, 470 U.S. 226 , is a landmark decision concerning aboriginal title in the United States...
(1985) ["Oneida II"], the 1982 Act "for the first time imposed a statute of limitations on certain tort and contract claims for damages brought by individual Indians and Indian tribes." Oneida II, considering the Act, observed: "[T]he statutory framework adopted in 1982 presumes the existence of an Indian right of action not otherwise subject to any statute of limitations. It would be a violation of Congress' will were we to hold that a state statute of limitations period should be borrowed in these circumstances." The claims involved in Oneida II was included on the first list, although it need not have been because the Oneida's suit was filed in 1970, before the law.
In Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki
Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki
Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 , is an important precedent in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the litigation of aboriginal title in the United States. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in City of Sherrill v...
(2005), where the Second Circuit held that laches
Laches (equity)
Laches is an "unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim...in a way that prejudices the [opposing] party" When asserted in litigation, it is an equitable defense, or doctrine...
bars all aboriginal title claims sounding in ejectment or trespass, the Cayuga's claim was on the supplemental list.
The Interior Department's list
The Interior Department's initial list was 222 pages long.The initial list contained more than 17,000 claims by allottees relating to the White Earth Indian Reservation
White Earth Indian Reservation
The White Earth Indian Reservation is the home to the White Earth Nation, located in northwestern Minnesota. It is the largest Indian reservation in that state...
in Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota is a U.S. state located in the Midwestern United States. The twelfth largest state of the U.S., it is the twenty-first most populous, with 5.3 million residents. Minnesota was carved out of the eastern half of the Minnesota Territory and admitted to the Union as the thirty-second state...
, totaling more than 100,000 acres. Congress responded with the White Earth Reservation Land Settlement Act (1986).