United States v. Navajo Nation

Supreme Court of the United States
173 L. Ed. 2d 429, 556 U.S. 287, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 2550 (2009)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To establish a valid claim against the United States for breach of trust under the Indian Tucker Act, a tribe must identify a specific, applicable rights-creating or duty-imposing statute or regulation that the government violated; general governmental control over tribal resources is insufficient on its own to create a compensable fiduciary duty.

Facts:

In 1964, the Navajo Nation (the Tribe) executed a coal lease (Lease 8580) with the predecessor of Peabody Coal Company, which was approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
The lease stipulated that royalty rates were subject to 'reasonable adjustment' by the Secretary after the initial 20-year period, which ended in 1984.
In 1984, the Tribe requested an upward adjustment, and a Bureau of Indian Affairs Area Director issued a decision increasing the rate to 20% of gross proceeds.
Peabody Coal Company filed an administrative appeal of the Area Director's decision.
While the appeal was pending, the Tribe alleged that the Secretary of the Interior engaged in improper ex parte communications with Peabody and intentionally delayed action on the appeal.
Pressured by its economic situation, the Tribe negotiated a new agreement with Peabody for a lower royalty rate of 12.5% of gross proceeds.
In 1987, the Secretary of the Interior approved the lease amendments reflecting the negotiated 12.5% royalty rate.

Procedural Posture:

In 1993, the Navajo Nation sued the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for breach of trust, seeking $600 million in damages.
The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment to the United States, dismissing the claim.
On appeal by the Navajo Nation (appellant), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that a fiduciary duty existed.
The United States (petitioner) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the Federal Circuit in United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) (Navajo I), and remanded the case.
On remand, the Federal Circuit sent the case back to the Court of Federal Claims to consider other statutes not previously analyzed.
The Court of Federal Claims once again dismissed the Tribe’s claim.
On a second appeal by the Navajo Nation (appellant), the Federal Circuit again reversed the dismissal.
The United States (petitioner) again sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do the Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, or the federal government's comprehensive control over coal leasing on tribal lands establish a specific, money-mandating fiduciary duty that the government breached by approving a coal lease amendment with a royalty rate the Navajo Nation considered unfavorable?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Scalia

No. The statutes and general control cited by the Navajo Nation do not create a specific, money-mandating fiduciary duty that the government breached. To bring a claim under the Indian Tucker Act, a tribe must first identify a specific statutory or regulatory provision that imposes a trust duty. The court's analysis begins with this source of law, not with general common-law trust principles or the government's overall control. Here, the cited provisions of the Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act are inapplicable because Lease 8580 was issued under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act (IMLA), as evidenced by its indefinite lease term which is permitted by the IMLA but not the Rehabilitation Act. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is also inapplicable because it only applies to leases issued after its 1977 enactment, and Lease 8580 was issued in 1964. Because the Tribe cannot identify a specific, applicable, trust-creating statute, the government's liability cannot be premised on 'control' alone, and the claim fails.

Concurring - Justice Souter

Although I disagreed with the Court's initial decision in this matter (Navajo I), I recognize that it is now precedent and agree that it compels the result reached by the majority today.

Analysis:

This decision, often called Navajo II, strongly reaffirms and solidifies the stringent, two-part test for tribal breach-of-trust claims established in Mitchell I & II and Navajo I. It clarifies that tribes cannot rely on a vague 'network' of statutes or the government's general 'comprehensive control' over resources to establish a compensable fiduciary duty. The ruling mandates a source-specific, textualist approach, significantly raising the bar for tribes to succeed in such litigation. By requiring tribes to pinpoint an explicit, applicable statutory or regulatory command that the government has violated, the Court has made it substantially more difficult to hold the U.S. liable for damages based on generalized trust responsibilities.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Navajo Nation (2009)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature