Indianz.Com. In Print.
URL: http://www.indianz.com/News/archives/002205.asp
Court opens window for Navajo Nation trust suit
Monday, October 27, 2003
A federal appeals court on Friday gave the Navajo Nation another chance to prove its $600 million breach of trust claim against the federal government.
In a 5-4 ruling this past March, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the tribe's case, which stems from a coal mining agreement approved during the Reagan administration. Pitting tribal self-determination against the federal trust responsibility, the majority said the laws at issue did
not create a fiduciary relationship that gives rise to money damages if breached by the United States.
But the tribe argued that the decision left open the possibility that a "network" of other laws, regulations and treaties could establish that relationship. A three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, rejecting the government's opposition to reopening
the long-running case.
The tribe has some hurdles to overcome before proceeding, however.
First, the judges said the Court of Federal Claims must determine whether the tribe waived its claim
with respect to the network of other laws, as the government contends.
Second, the majority imposed a limit on the network of laws
the tribe can cite in the lower court.
Two judges excluded the Indian Mineral Leasing Act (IMLA) and the
Indian Mineral Development Act (IMDA) because they said
the Supreme Court addressed both in its March 3 decision.
But in a dissent, one judge disagreed with this line of
thinking.
"This restriction is neither implicit in the court's decision,
nor supportable as a matter of objective analysis," wrote
Judge Pauline Newman. She said the tribe should be allowed
to use "all sources" on information in the case.
Finally, the tribe still has to show that its claim
satisfies Supreme Court precedents in breach of
trust cases.
The Mitchell I and Mitchell II cases
set up the framework by which laws, regulations
and treaties are examined to determine whether
the federal government has "full responsibility
to manage Indian resources and land for the benefit of the Indians."
In ruling against the Navajo Nation in March, the Supreme
Court found that the IMLA and IMDA did not impose
judicially-enforceable duties upon the Department of
Interior.
Instead, the majority said the laws placed the tribe
in control of its resources.
The decision rocked the tribe's dispute
over a mineral development lease with Peabody Energy, the largest
coal company in the world.
Tribal leaders signed the deal in 1987 under financial
pressure, and have always contended that it
was not in their best interests because Reagan
administration officials rejected their bid for a higher
royalty rate on the coal deposit, considered one of
the most valuable in the nation.
The tribe had won the backing of a Bureau of Indian
Affairs subordinate for a 20 percent royalty rate.
But mysteriously, then-Interior Secretary Don Hodel
told the tribe to continue negotiations with Peabody.
Only through litigation did the tribe discover
that Hodel's directive came days after he met secretly with a
Peabody lobbyist who happened to be a close friend.
The BIA had already drafted a decision affirming
the 20 percent rate, but this was also kept from
the tribe, whose leaders eventually
settled for a 12.5 percent royalty rate.
As a result of the lower rate, the tribe claims it
lost at least $600 million.
The exact amount would be decided by the courts.
Separately, the tribe is pursuing a federal racketeering
case against Peabody for allegedly conspiring with
the Reagan administration to deny the higher
royalty rate.
The case is in the U.S. District Court in Washington,
D.C. Peabody has tried numerous times to delay or
dismiss the case but the attempts have been rejected.
Bush administration officials currently in charge of
Indian trust have been involved in the case.
Deputy Secretary J. Steven Griles oversaw the
now-defunct mining division that supported the tribe's
stance on the scientific facts before it was
rejected by the political appointees.
Special Trustee Ross Swimmer, as former head of
the BIA, ended up approving the 1987 lease
without conducting an economic analysis.
Get the Decision:
Navajo Nation v. U.S. (October 24, 2003)
Relevant Links:
The Navajo Nation - http://www.navajo.org
Peabody Energy - http://www.peabodyenergy.com
Related Stories:
Peabody seeks
to dismiss Navajo Nation claim (06/18)
Court appears ready to toss Peabody
appeal (04/15)
Supreme
Court's trust rulings criticized (4/14)
Navajo Nation back in court over
Peabody lease (4/8)
Effects of Supreme Court decision
debated (03/07)
High court
ruling makes 'passive' trustee of U.S. (3/5)
A mixed bag for Indian trust (3/5)
Supreme Court issues trust
decisions (3/4)
Swimmer
can't recall Navajo involvement (02/13)
Panel predicts Apache victory
(12/4)
Navajo 'deception'
gets Supreme Court hearing (12/03)
Peabody sides with Bush
administration on trust (09/04)
Legal tactics land Peabody in hot
seat (7/22)
Navajo royalty
case accepted (6/4)
Don
Hodel's Navajo Folly (6/4)
Supreme Court accepts Navajo trust
case (6/3)
Navajo royalty
case up for review (5/30)
Supreme Court considers 'deception'
of trust (5/22)
Action due
on Navajo trust case (5/20)
Bush wants Navajo ruling reversed
(3/27)
Court rules Navajo Nation
owed money (8/14)
Copyright © 2000-2003 Indianz.Com