United States v. Navajo Nation (2008)
- Docket
- 07-1410
- Decided
- 2008-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the decision by the Supreme Court in Navajo Nation I , foreclose this most recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit? If the decision was not foreclosed, did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit properly hold that the United States was liable based on its interpretation of statutes that do not address royalty rates in tribal leases? Conclusion: No and No. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Antonin G. Scalia, the Court held that its decision in Navajo I had not definitively terminated the Nation's claim. In Navajo I it reasoned that the Nation's only avenue to sue the United States was by finding "specific rights-creating or duty-imposing statutory or regulatory prescriptions." The Court reasoned that since only three statutes were analyzed, there might exist a relevant statute that could provide the Nation a basis for its lawsuit. However, the Supreme Court also held that none of the sources of law cited by the Nation provided such a basis and therefore its suit should be dismissed. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote a separate concurring opinion. He admitted regretting that his dissenting opinion in Navajo I was not controlling authority, but recognized the Court must abide its precedent.