El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie
143 L. Ed. 2d 635, 526 U.S. 473, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 3004 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The judicially created, prudential doctrine of tribal court exhaustion does not apply to claims governed by the Price-Anderson Act, as the Act's comprehensive scheme for federal jurisdiction and removal expresses a clear congressional intent to channel all such claims into a federal forum, thereby overriding general principles of comity.
Facts:
- Laura Neztsosie, her son, and Zonnie Richards are all members of the Navajo Nation.
- From the 1940s through the 1960s, El Paso Natural Gas Company and a predecessor of Cyprus Foote Mineral Company operated open-pit uranium mines and processing facilities on the Navajo Nation Reservation.
- The Neztsosies alleged they used water that had collected in these mines for various purposes, including for drinking.
- The Neztsosies and Richards filed lawsuits in Navajo Nation tribal courts, alleging that they and their family members suffered severe injuries and, in one case, death, resulting from exposure to radioactive and other hazardous materials from the mining operations.
- The tribal court lawsuits asserted claims for compensatory and punitive damages under Navajo tort law.
Procedural Posture:
- Laura Neztsosie and Zonnie Richards filed separate civil lawsuits in the District Court of the Navajo Nation against El Paso Natural Gas Co. and Cyprus Foote Mineral Co., respectively.
- The defendant companies then filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, seeking to enjoin the tribal court proceedings.
- The U.S. District Court, applying the tribal exhaustion doctrine, largely denied the companies' requests for a preliminary injunction, ordering that the tribal courts should determine their own jurisdiction in the first instance.
- The District Court did, however, partially enjoin the tribal plaintiffs from pursuing claims under the Price-Anderson Act, but left the threshold determination of whether the claims fell under the Act to the tribal courts.
- The companies (appellants) appealed the District Court's refusal to grant a full injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The tribal plaintiffs (appellees) did not file a cross-appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's application of the exhaustion doctrine and, acting on its own initiative, also vacated the partial injunctions against the plaintiffs.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the prudential doctrine of tribal court exhaustion, which ordinarily requires federal courts to abstain while a tribal court determines its own jurisdiction, apply to claims that are potentially 'public liability actions' arising from a 'nuclear incident' under the Price-Anderson Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No. The prudential doctrine of tribal court exhaustion does not apply to claims that fall within the scope of the Price-Anderson Act. The Court reasoned that unlike the general federal question jurisdiction at issue in cases establishing the exhaustion doctrine, the Price-Anderson Act contains an unusual and express congressional preference for a federal forum. The Act not only grants federal district courts original jurisdiction but also provides for mandatory removal of such actions from state courts to ensure consolidation and efficient resolution. Applying the tribal exhaustion doctrine would frustrate the Act's clear objectives of speed, efficiency, and avoidance of duplicative litigation in multiple jurisdictions. Therefore, the comity-based concerns that underlie the exhaustion doctrine are displaced by the specific statutory commands and policy goals of the Price-Anderson Act.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant statutory exception to the tribal exhaustion doctrine established in National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe. It demonstrates that the prudential abstention doctrine is not absolute and must yield where Congress has enacted a specific and comprehensive jurisdictional scheme indicating a clear preference for a federal forum. The case instructs lower courts that they cannot reflexively apply tribal exhaustion; they must first analyze whether the specific federal statute at issue contains provisions, like the Price-Anderson Act's removal and consolidation mechanics, that override the general comity principles supporting abstention. This holding limits the initial jurisdictional authority of tribal courts over claims falling within certain highly regulated federal fields.
