Kescoli v. Babbitt
101 F.3d 1304, 1996 WL 673535 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, a sovereign Native American tribe is a necessary and indispensable party to litigation that seeks to invalidate a settlement agreement to which it is a party. If the tribe cannot be joined due to sovereign immunity, the action must be dismissed.
Facts:
- Peabody Western Coal Company (Peabody) operates coal mines on land leased from the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe, who are joint owners of some subsurface minerals.
- The U.S. Office of Surface Mining (OSM) issued a mining permit to Peabody that included a special condition requiring measures to mitigate the mine's impact on sacred and ceremonial sites.
- Peabody, the OSM, the Navajo Nation, and the Hopi Tribe entered into a settlement agreement that modified this special condition.
- The modified condition established procedures for communication about sacred sites, including confidentiality assurances and annual reviews of mining plans.
- Maxine Kescoli, a member of the Navajo Nation, opposed the settlement, believing the modified condition inadequately protected sacred burial sites from mining activities.
Procedural Posture:
- Peabody filed a request for administrative review of special conditions in its mining permit.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) permitted the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, and Maxine Kescoli to intervene in the administrative proceeding.
- The ALJ approved a settlement agreement reached by Peabody, the OSM, and the two tribes.
- Kescoli filed a petition for review with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), which affirmed the ALJ's decision.
- Kescoli then filed a petition for review in the U.S. District Court, suing the Secretary of the Interior.
- The district court dismissed the action under FRCP 19(b), finding the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe were necessary and indispensable parties who could not be joined due to sovereign immunity.
- Kescoli 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:
Are Native American tribes that are parties to a settlement agreement indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b) in a lawsuit seeking to invalidate that agreement, thus requiring dismissal of the suit if the tribes cannot be joined due to sovereign immunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, Circuit Judge
Yes. Native American tribes are indispensable parties to a lawsuit seeking to invalidate an agreement they negotiated, and the suit must be dismissed if they cannot be joined. The court applied a two-part analysis under FRCP 19. First, the tribes are necessary parties because they have a direct interest in the settlement agreement which balances their economic interests (royalties and jobs) against the protection of sacred sites; invalidating the agreement would impair this interest and undermine their sovereign ability to govern their own affairs. Second, because the tribes' sovereign immunity prevents them from being joined, the court must determine if they are indispensable. Applying the four-factor test of Rule 19(b), the court found that any judgment in the tribes' absence would prejudice their interests, relief could not be shaped to avoid this prejudice, and although the plaintiff may lack an alternative forum, a tribe's sovereign immunity is a compelling factor that can outweigh the plaintiff's interest in litigation. The court also rejected the 'public rights' exception, finding Kescoli's claim to be an essentially private dispute with tribal leadership over the tribe's best interests, not a vindication of a broader public right, and that proceeding would directly threaten the tribes' legal entitlements under the settlement.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant procedural hurdle that tribal sovereign immunity creates for litigants seeking to challenge actions or agreements involving tribes. It establishes that a tribe's interest in a contract or settlement it has negotiated is sufficient to make it a necessary party, and its immunity often makes it an indispensable one, leading to dismissal. The ruling narrows the 'public rights' exception, making it difficult for individual tribal members to use federal courts to challenge the decisions of their tribal governments when those decisions are formalized in agreements with outside parties.
