Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Cobell v. Norton

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
240 F.3d 1081 (2001)


Facts

The federal government held land in trust accounts for the Indians under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. § 461 et seq. These trust accounts were known as Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts. Cobell was one of group of Indians (Indians) (plaintiffs) who sued the Secretary of the Interior and federal employees (government) (defendants) for a full accounting of the IIM accounts held by the government. The Indians believed that money within the accounts was being mismanaged. The district court held that the Indians were entitled to an accounting of the IIM accounts under both the government’s general fiduciary duty to the Indians and the fiduciary duties imposed on the government by the Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act (Reform Act), 25 U.S.C. § 4001 et seq. The district court ordered the government to provide an accounting to the Indians. The government appealed, arguing that the Reform Act did not require the government to provide an accounting to IIM account holders. Because an accounting was outside the scope of the government’s fiduciary duties, the government claimed that the district court was not authorized to grant equitable relief in the form of an accounting to the Indians. The government further argued that the government’s interpretation of the Reform Act should be given deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Chevron requires that an agency interpretation of a statute be given deference unless arbitrary or capricious.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Sentelle, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.