Cobell v. Kempthorne
Cobell v. Salazar
(previously Cobell v.
Kempthorne and Cobell v. Norton and Co-
bell v. Babbitt) is a class-action lawsuit
brought by Native American representatives
against the United States government. The
plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government has
incorrectly accounted for Indian trust assets,
which belong to individual Native Americans
(as beneficial owners) but are managed by
the Department of the Interior as the fidu-
ciary trustee. The case was filed in the Un-
ited States District Court for the District of
Columbia. It has never asserted claims for
mismanagement of the trust assets, since
such claims could only properly be asserted
in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
The case is sometimes reported as the
largest class-action lawsuit against the U.S.
in history, but the basis for this claim is a
matter of dispute. Plaintiffs contend that the
number of class members is around 500,000,
while defendants maintain it is closer to
250,000. The potential liability of the U.S.
government in the case is also disputed:
plaintiffs have suggested a figure as high as
$176 billion, and defendants have suggested
a number in the low millions.
Background
Early Federal Indian law
The history of the Indian trust is inseparable
from the larger context of the Federal gov-
ernment’s relationship with American Indi-
ans, and the policies that were promulgated
as that relationship evolved. At its core, the
Indian trust is an artifact of a nineteenth cen-
tury Federal policy, and its current form
bears the
imprint of subsequent policy
evolutions.
During the late 1800s, Congress believed
that the best way to foster assimilation of In-
dians was to “introduce among the Indians
the customs and pursuits of civilized life and
gradually absorb them into the mass of our
citizens.” Under the General Allotment Act of
1887 (the Dawes Act), tribal lands were di-
vided into parcels between 40 and 160 acres
(0.65 km2)
in size. The total
land area
comprised by the allotments was small com-
pared to the amount o