Mitchell v. United States

I agree with and join in the court’s decision except as specified. I add this concurrence largely because in Navajo Tribe v. United States, 218 Ct. Cl. 11, 586 F. 2d 192 (1978), I expressed the view that the court was again taking entirely too lightly the doctrine of strict construction of the consent to be sued, that the dropping out of Indian moral claims from our jurisdiction if they accrued after August 13, 1946, *107was no small matter and could be decisive in our adjudication of many Indian suits, and referred to the instant Mitchell case, which I expected to be hearing soon, as an example…