In the United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe case of 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. The tribe had sued for compensation from the federal government for failing to maintain and protect tribal assets on a property known as Fort Apache, which was held in trust by the U.S. Government but controlled by the tribe under an act passed in 1960. The government argued that it did not have a fiduciary responsibility to maintain these buildings because there was no explicit instruction within this act requiring them to do so. However, Justice Souter delivered an opinion stating that while there may be no specific instructions regarding maintenance, holding something 'in trust' inherently implies certain responsibilities including preservation of trust assets - thus making it liable for damages caused due to failure in maintaining those properties.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority misinterpreted previous case law and expanded trust duties beyond what Congress intended. He contended that a fiduciary relationship necessarily implies obligations on both parties but does not automatically impose specific responsibilities without explicit statutory or regulatory provisions to that effect. In this case, he believed there was no clear mandate from Congress requiring the government to maintain and preserve the Fort Apache property in question. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on common-law principles of trusts as inappropriate given their inconsistency with federal Indian policy and legislation. Thus, according to Justice Thomas' dissenting view, because there were no express instructions by Congress regarding maintenance of Fort Apache property under its trust agreement with White Mountain Apache Tribe, any claim against U.S Government for breach of such duty should be dismissed.