Hoopa appendix supporting summary judgment - Schlosser Law Files

the Kiamath River and Hoopa parcels. Thus after 1891, the three parcels were enclosed within
continuous boundaries.
As connected by the Executive Orders, the 1891 Reservation spanned traditional tribal
areas of two tribes, the Hoopas and the Yuroks. Although their traditional areas were connected
by Executive Orders, the social structure and political organization of the groups remained
separate. The Hoopas on the Square and the Yuroks on the “Extension” (the Klamath River
Reservation plus the “Connecting Strip”) both rejected the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.
Strong tribal government developed and flourished on the Square, startingjust after the turn of the
century. Yurok organization splintered, and in the 1950s the Bureau of Indian Affairs declined to
approve Yurok constitutions.
The Yurok parcels were largely allotted in the 1890s, including valuable timber land, but
most of the timbered areas of the Hoopa Square were reserved from allotment. By 1955 little
unallotted land and timber remained on the Extension. In 1955, at the request of the Hoopa Valley
Tribe, the Bureau ofIndian Affairs began to sell timber from the unallotted lands of the Square.
The Bureau distributed the proceeds as directed by the constitutionally-established Hoopa Valley
Business Council, primarily in per capita payments to Hoopa tribal members. The Interior
Department Solicitor approved this. 65 I.D. 59, 2 Op. So!. Int. 1814 (1958). Nonmembers of the
Hoopa Valley Tribe sued the United States in 1963, claiming that, although they were not enrolled
in any tribe, they too should receive per capita payments. Jessie Short, et al. v. United States,
No. 102-63 (Ct. Cl.). 3
~Short v. United States includes seven reported opinions, 202 Ct. Cl. 870 (1973);
661 F.2d 150 (Ct. Cl. 1981); 719 F.2d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 1983); 12 Cl. Ct. 36 (1987); 25 Cl. Ct. 722
(1992); 28 Fed. Cl. 590 (1993); and 50 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1995), and hundreds of unreported
-3-