Dine Citizens Against Ruining v. Bureau of Indian Affairs
932 F.3d 843 (2019)
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, a tribal entity is a required party that must be joined if it claims a legally protected interest in the subject matter that cannot be adequately represented by existing parties; if sovereign immunity prevents joinder, the action must be dismissed if the litigation threatens to destroy the tribe's legal entitlements.
Facts:
- The Navajo Nation created the Navajo Transitional Energy Company (NTEC) as a wholly owned corporation to purchase the Navajo Mine from a private company.
- The mine supplies coal exclusively to the Four Corners Power Plant, and the operation of both facilities generates between $40 million and $60 million annually in revenue for the Navajo Nation.
- Federal agencies, including the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, approved lease amendments and issued new surface mining permits allowing the mine to continue and expand operations.
- NTEC and the Arizona Public Service Company invested hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrades, improvements, and conservation measures in reliance on these federal approvals.
- A coalition of conservation organizations challenged these federal approvals, alleging the biological opinions and environmental impact statements violated the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Federal Defendants alleging violations of NEPA and the ESA.
- Arizona Public Service Company intervened as a defendant.
- NTEC intervened for the limited purpose of filing a motion to dismiss.
- NTEC moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to join a required party under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 and 12(b)(7).
- The District Court granted NTEC's motion and dismissed the lawsuit.
- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a tribal corporation a required and indispensable party to an environmental lawsuit challenging federal permits for a mine owned by that corporation, such that the suit must be dismissed if the corporation cannot be joined due to sovereign immunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Friedland
Yes, the court held that the litigation could not proceed because the tribal corporation was a required party that could not be joined due to sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, reasoning that NTEC had a legally protected interest in the suit because the relief sought—vacating the mining approvals—would directly impair its existing lease rights and revenue stream. The court found that the Federal Defendants could not adequately represent NTEC's interests because the government's primary obligation is to comply with environmental laws, which differs from the tribe's sovereign interest in securing revenue and managing its natural resources. The court determined that NTEC was an 'arm of the tribe' entitled to sovereign immunity and thus could not be joined involuntarily. Finally, under Rule 19(b), the court balanced the equities and concluded the action must be dismissed because the prejudice to the tribe's sovereign and economic interests outweighed the plaintiffs' lack of an alternative forum. The 'public rights' exception did not apply because the suit threatened to destroy NTEC's specific legal entitlements (the permits) rather than merely enforcing general public administrative compliance.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'wall of circuit authority' protecting tribal sovereign immunity in federal litigation, even when it results in plaintiffs having no forum to challenge federal environmental decisions involving tribal land. The court clarified the distinction between cases seeking only prospective procedural compliance (where tribes might not be necessary parties) and cases that threaten existing contracts or permits (where tribes are indispensable). It also highlights the limitations of the 'public rights' exception, establishing that it cannot be used to bypass Rule 19 joinder requirements when a specific party's legal entitlements, such as mining leases, are at risk of destruction.
