United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-5059
THE NAVAJO NATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Paul E. Frye, Frye Law Firm, P.C., of Albuquerque, New Mexico, argued for
plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Lisa M. Enfield. Of counsel on the brief
was Daniel I.S.J. Rey-Bear, The Nordhaus Law Firm, of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and
Louis Denetsosie, Attorney General, The Navajo Nation, of Window Rock, Arizona.
Todd S. Aagaard, Attorney, Environment & Natural Resources Division, United
States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With
him on the brief was Sue Ellen Wooldridge, Assistant Attorney General.
Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims
Judge Lawrence M. Baskir
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-5059
THE NAVAJO NATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
DECIDED: September 13, 2007
________________________
Before GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and MOORE, Circuit
Judge.
GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.
The threshold question in this case is whether the Navajo Nation (“Nation” or
“Tribe”) has a cognizable money-mandating claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1505, known as
the Indian Tucker Act, against the United States for a breach of trust in a lease of the
Nation’s lands for coal mining to Peabody Coal Co. (“Peabody”). Only if there is such a
claim, may we evaluate whether the United States breached its trust duties based on
the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
In United States v. Navajo Nation (“Navajo III”), 537 U.S. 488 (2003), the
Supreme Court held that the Act of May 11, 1938 (“Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938”
or “IMLA of 1938”), ch. 198, 52 Stat. 347, 25 U.S.C. § 396a-g, and its implementing
regulations do not constitute the substantive source of law required to establish such a
claim and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Navajo III, 537
U.S. at 514. Because Navajo III did not address whether the network of other statutes
and regulations asserted by the Nation provides the required substantive source of law,
we remanded to the Court of Federal Claims to consider the question. Navajo Nation v.
United States (“Navajo IV”), 347 F.3d 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003). On remand, the
Court of Federal Claims found that the Nation’s asserted network of other statutes and
regulations failed “to establish a money-mandating trust in the area of royalty rates.”
Navajo Nation v. United States (“Navajo V”), 68 Fed. Cl. 805, 815 (2005). The Nation
appealed.
The Supreme Court stated in United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537
U.S. 465 (2003), that “[i]t is enough . . . that a statute creating a[n Indian] Tucker Act
right be reasonably amenable to the reading that it mandates a right of recovery in
damages. While the premise to a[n Indian] Tucker Act claim will not be ‘lightly inferred,’
a fair inference will do.” Id. at 473 (citation omitted). Because the governing law
establishes such a fair inference in this case and because the undisputed facts as
determined by the Court of Federal Claims demonstrate that the government breached
its trust duties, we reverse the decision of the Court of Federal Claims and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
A. Background Facts
The facts of this case are undisputed and have been detailed by the Court of
Federal Claims in Navajo Nation v. United States (“Navajo I”), 46 Fed. Cl. 217, 221-24
(2000), this court in Navajo Nation v. United States (“Navajo II”), 263 F.3d 1325, 1327-
2006-5059 2
28 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and the Supreme Court in Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 495-500.
Because of the prior detail, we provide only a brief factual summary here.
The Navajo reservation is the largest Indian reservation in the United States and
spans parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The United States holds the Nation’s
reservation lands in trust for the Nation pursuant to a treaty, an executive order, and two
Congressional acts. See infra Part III.D.1. Over the past century, large coal deposits
have been discovered on these lands. Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 495.
In 1964, the Nation and the predecessor of Peabody 1 executed Lease 14-20-
0603-8580 (“Lease 8580”), which became effective when the Secretary of the
Department of the Interior approved it that year. Navajo I, 46 Fed. Cl. at 221. Lease
8580 granted Peabody the “exclusive right and license to prospect, mine, and strip”
24,858 acres of the Nation’s reservation in Arizona for coal. In return, the lease
established royalties of not more than 37.5 cents per ton. The lease also provided,
however, that “the royalty provisions of this lease are subject to reasonable adjustment
by the Secretary of the Interior . . . at the end of twenty years from the effective date of
this lease.”
As the twenty-year anniversary approached in 1984, it became apparent that the
37.5 cents per ton maximum royalty was “by any measure, an inequitable deal” for the
Nation and was “substantially lower” than the 12.5% minimum royalty set by Congress
in 1977 for coal mined on federal lands. Navajo I, 46 Fed. Cl. at 222; Navajo III, 537
U.S. at 496. In March 1984, the Nation wrote the Secretary of the Interior, William
Clark, asking him to make a reasonable adjustment of the royalty rate as provided by
1
Hereinafter, we refer to Peabody and its predecessor as “Peabody.”
2006-5059 3
Lease 8580. In June 1984, after considering the “reports and recommendations from
the Bureau’s Navajo Area and Energy and Mineral Resources Offices, the Bureau of
Mines and others,” the Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the Navajo Area,
pursuant to authority delegated by the Secretary, issued a final decision adjusting the
royalty rate of Lease 8580 to 20% of gross proceeds. Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 496.
In July 1984, Peabody filed an administrative appeal, which was
referred to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, John
Fritz, then acting as both Commissioner of Indian Affairs and
Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. In March 1985, Fritz
permitted Peabody to supplement its brief and requested additional
cost, revenue, and investment data. He thereafter appeared ready
to reject Peabody’s appeal. By June 1985, both Peabody and the
Tribe anticipated that an announcement favorable to the Tribe was
imminent.
Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 496 (citations omitted).
In July 1985, Peabody wrote a letter to the new Secretary of the Interior, Donald
Hodel, seeking either to postpone the decision reviewing the royalty adjustment or to
issue a ruling in Peabody’s favor. The Nation received a copy of the letter and
submitted its own to Secretary Hodel, “urging the Secretary to reject Peabody’s request
and to secure the Department’s prompt release of a decision in the Tribe’s favor.” Id. at
497 (citations omitted).
Later that month, Peabody retained Stanley Hulett, who was described in a
Peabody company memorandum as “a former upper level Department of Interior
employee” believed to have “influence with the current Secretary of Interior (Don
Hodel).” The government conceded in this case that Hulett was “a former aide and
friend of Secretary Hodel.” See Navajo III U.S. Br., 2002 WL 1968199, at *8. Hulett
met with the Secretary without a representative of the Nation being present, and the
2006-5059 4
Nation never received notification of the meeting. Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 497. “On or
shortly after the date of the ex parte meeting, Secretary Hodel signed a memorandum
prepared by Peabody, making only one insignificant change in the company’s draft.”
Navajo I, 46 Fed. Cl. at 222-23. Secretary Hodel addressed to Fritz the memorandum,
which stated in part:
I suggest that you inform the involved parties that a decision on this
appeal is not imminent and urge them to continue with efforts to
resolve this matter in a mutually agreeable fashion.
....
I wish to assure you, however, that this memorandum is not
intended as a determination of the merits of the arguments of the
parties with respect to the issues which are subject to the appeal. If
it becomes inevitable that such a determination must be made by
the Department, then we can discuss it at that time.
The Nation was not advised of this memorandum but “learned that someone from
Washington had urged a return to the bargaining table. Facing severe economic
pressure, the Tribe resumed negotiations with Peabody in August 1985.” Navajo III,
537 U.S. at 498 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
In September 1985, Peabody and the Nation reached a tentative settlement
agreement on a package of amendments. The amendments were approved by the
Navajo Tribal Council in August 1987, signed by the parties in a final agreement in
November 1987, and approved by Secretary Hodel in December 1987. Id. at 500. The
amended lease raised the royalty rate to 12.5% for Lease 8580. In addition, the
amendments raised the royalty rate for two other existing leases, which did not contain
Lease 8580’s reasonable adjustment provision, resolved a broad range of issues
between Peabody and the Nation, and added 90 million tons of coal to the 200 million
2006-5059 5
tons originally leased from the Nation’s reservation lands in Arizona. The amendments
acknowledged that the parties could have executed a separate lease or leases to mine
the additional coal, but instead, decided to amend the lease “in consideration for various
additional undertakings of Peabody.” Without its exhibits, the amendments numbered
more pages than the original Lease 8580.
B. Procedural History
In 1993, the Nation brought suit seeking $600 million in damages against the
United States in the Court of Federal Claims. Navajo I, 46 Fed. Cl. at 225. The first
amended complaint asserted that the “leasing of coal of the Navajo Nation is subject to
a comprehensive statutory and regulatory scheme of the United States”; that the
government “claimed and exercised broad authority and control over the leasing of coal
it holds in trust for the Navajo Nation”; and that the government violated its statutory and
fiduciary duties to the Nation “by, inter alia, approving the amendments to the Lease on
December 14, 1987, causing economic loss to the Navajo Nation, a diminution of the
value of the trust res, and harm to the sovereignty of the Navajo Nation.”
On cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of liability, while finding
“that the United States violated the most fundamental fiduciary duties of care, loyalty
and candor,” the Court of Federal Claims held that the Nation “failed to present statutory
authority which can be fairly interpreted as mandating compensation for the
government’s fiduciary wrongs.” Navajo I, 46 Fed. Cl. at 227, 236. Specifically,
according to the Court of Federal Claims, neither the IMLA of 1938 nor its implementing
regulations, 25 C.F.R. Part 211 (1985), imposed “specific duties regarding the
Secretary’s adjustment of royalty rates for coal.” Id. at 234. Similarly, 25 C.F.R. Parts
2006-5059 6
169 (1985) (rights-of-way over Indian lands), 200 (1993) (terms and conditions of coal
leases), and 216 (1985) (surface exploration, mining, and reclamation of lands) failed to
provide a money mandating cause of action because they merely “touch[ed] summarily
on the topic of royalties.” See id. at 232. The Court of Federal Claims granted
summary judgment in favor of the government.
On appeal, this court reversed and remanded. Navajo II, 263 F.3d at 1333.
Specifically, this court held that the IMLA of 1938, its implementing regulations, and the
Act of Jun. 30, 1919 (“Act of 1919”), ch. 4, § 26, 41 Stat. 31, 25 U.S.C. § 399, provided
the authority for a claim for damages within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
Claims. Navajo II, 263 F.3d at 1328-33.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed, and remanded. Navajo III, 537
U.S. at 514. The Court held that “the IMLA [of 1938] and its regulations do not assign to
the Secretary managerial control over coal leasing. Nor do they even establish the
‘limited trust relationship’” of United States v. Mitchell (“Mitchell I”), 445 U.S. 535, 542
(1980). Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 506-08, 512-13. The Court also stated that reliance on
25 U.S.C. § 399 was misplaced and that the Nation’s lease fell outside the domain of
the Act of Dec. 22, 1982 (“Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982” or “IMDA of 1982”),
Pub. L. No. 97-382, 96 Stat. 1938, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2101-08. Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 509.
We subsequently remanded to the Court of Federal Claims with instructions.
Navajo IV, 347 F.3d at 1332. Finding the Supreme Court’s Navajo III decision limited to
the IMLA of 1938, 25 U.S.C. § 399, and the IMDA of 1982, this court directed the Court
of Federal Claims (1) to “determine whether, as the government asserts, the Tribe
waived a claim with respect to ‘a network of other statutes and regulations,’” and if not,
2006-5059 7
(2) to “decide, whether, apart from IMLA [of 1938], section 399, and IMDA [of 1982], a
‘network of other statutes and regulations’ imposes ‘judicially enforceable fiduciary
duties upon the United States.’” Navajo IV, 347 F.3d at 1333.
On remand, the Court of Federal Claims found no waiver because the Nation’s
“advocacy on behalf of jurisdiction always included the network argument.” Navajo V,
68 Fed. Cl. at 810. The Court of Federal Claims concluded, however, that the network
of other statutes and regulations “does not suffice to establish a money-mandating trust
in the area of royalty rates.” Id. at 815. The Nation appealed to this court.
This court has jurisdiction of the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
II.
A. Standard of Review
The threshold issue in this appeal, as with the five previous Navajo decisions, is
whether the Nation has stated a claim cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 1505, known as
the Indian Tucker Act. This is an issue of law that this court reviews without deference.
Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in pertinent part)
(“The trial court’s determination regarding the money-mandating character of the statute
at issue is of course subject to appellate review as a question of law.”).
The Court of Federal Claims applies the same summary judgment standard as
that of federal district courts: summary judgment is proper if the evidence demonstrates
that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” See Ct. Fed. Cl. R. 56(c); Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); SmithKline
Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Therefore, if
2006-5059 8
the Nation has stated a claim cognizable under the Indian Tucker Act, we review without
deference whether the United States breached its trust duties. SmithKline, 403 F.3d at
1337.
B. Legal Standard
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Mitchell I, 445 U.S. 535, United States v.
Mitchell (“Mitchell II”), 463 U.S. 206 (1983), Apache, 537 U.S. 465, and Navajo III, 537
U.S. 488, control this case. As explained in Apache:
Jurisdiction over any suit against the Government requires a
clear statement from the United States waiving sovereign immunity,
together with a claim falling within the terms of the waiver. The
terms of consent to be sued may not be inferred, but must be
“unequivocally expressed” in order to “define [a] court’s jurisdiction.”
The Tucker Act contains such a waiver, giving the Court of Federal
Claims jurisdiction to award damages upon proof of “any claim
against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or
any Act of Congress,” and its companion statute, the Indian Tucker
Act, confers a like waiver for Indian tribal claims that “otherwise
would be cognizable in the Court of Federal Claims if the claimant
were not an Indian tribe.”
Neither Act, however, creates a substantive right enforceable
against the Government by a claim for money damages. As we
said in Mitchell II, a statute creates a right capable of grounding a
claim within the waiver of sovereign immunity if, but only if, it “can
fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal
Government for the damage sustained.”
This “fair interpretation” rule demands a showing demonstrably
lower than the standard for the initial waiver of sovereign immunity.
“Because the Tucker Act supplies a waiver of immunity for claims of
this nature, the separate statutes and regulations need not provide
a second waiver of sovereign immunity, nor need they be construed
in the manner appropriate to waivers of sovereign immunity.” It is
enough, then, that a statute creating a Tucker Act right be
reasonably amenable to the reading that it mandates a right of
recovery in damages. While the premise to a Tucker Act claim will
not be “lightly inferred,” a fair inference will do.
2006-5059 9
537 U.S. at 472-73 (modification in original, citations omitted, emphasis added); see
also Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 506 (stating that courts must “determine whether the
relevant source of substantive law can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation
for damages sustained as a result of a breach of the duties [the governing law]
impose[s]” (modifications in original, citation and quotation marks omitted)).
The Supreme Court’s pathmarking precedents guide courts in determining “when
it is fair to infer a fiduciary duty qualifying under the Indian Tucker Act and when it is
not.” Apache, 537 U.S. at 473; see also Gregory C. Sisk, Yesterday and Today: Of
Indians, Breach of Trust, Money, and Sovereign Immunity, 39 Tulsa L. Rev. 313 (2003).
In Mitchell I,
1,465 individual allottees of land contained in the Quinault
Reservation, the Quinault Tribe, which now holds some allotments,
and the Quinault Allottees Association, an unincorporated
association formed to promote the interests of the allottees of the
Quinault Reservation . . . . sought to recover damages from the
Government for alleged mismanagement of timber resources found
on the Reservation.
445 U.S. at 537. Acknowledging that the Act provided that the United States held “‘the
land thus allotted . . . in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such
allotment shall have been made,’” the Court held that “the General Allotment Act[, ch.
119, 24 Stat. 388 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 25 U.S.C.)] . . . cannot
be read as establishing that the United States has a fiduciary responsibility for
management of allotted forest lands.” Mitchell I, 445 U.S. at 540-41 (quoting 25 U.S.C.
§ 348), 546. In so holding, the Court found it relevant that “Congress subsequently
enacted other legislation directing the Secretary on how to manage Indian timber
resources.” Mitchell I, 445 U.S. at 544-46.
2006-5059 10
Three years later, this “other legislation” noted in Mitchell I succeeded where the
General Allotment Act failed. Specifically, in Mitchell II, the Court held that the asserted
network of statutes and regulations could “fairly be interpreted as mandating
compensation by the Federal Government for violations of its fiduciary responsibilities in
the management of Indian property,” including the alleged mismanagement of timber
resources. 463 U.S. at 228. The Court reasoned that the statute and regulations (i)
establish “‘comprehensive’ responsibilities of the Federal Government in managing the
harvesting of Indian timber” (ii) for the benefit of the Indian owner and his heirs. See id.
at 222-24; see also Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 504-06 (discussing Mitchell II); Apache, 537
U.S. at 473-74 (same).
Similarly, in Apache, the Court held that the White Mountain Apache Tribe had a
cognizable claim “against the United States for breach of fiduciary duty to manage land
and improvements held in trust for the Tribe but occupied by the Government.” 537
U.S. at 468. The Court found it fair to infer a fiduciary duty because: (i) the statute
provides that “the former Fort Apache Military Reservation” is “held by the United States
in trust for the White Mountain Apache Tribe”; (ii) the statute subjects the trust property
“to the right of the Secretary of the Interior to use any part of the land and improvements
for administrative or school purposes for as long as they are needed for that purpose”;
(iii) the government availed itself of that option by occupying the trust corpus; and (iv)
“elementary” and “fundamental common-law” trust law imposes a duty on a trustee to
preserve and maintain trust assets. Id. at 469, 475.
In Navajo III, argued and decided on the same days as Apache, the Court
reached a different result. The Court held that the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938
2006-5059 11
and its implementing regulations could not “fairly be interpreted as mandating
compensation for the Government’s alleged breach of trust” in approving amendments
to a coal lease even though Peabody exerted ex parte influence on the Secretary of the
Interior. Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 506. The Court reasoned that the IMLA of 1938 and its
implementing regulations: (i) did not, at the relevant time, “contain any trust language
with respect to coal leasing”; (ii) “aim[ed] to enhance tribal self-determination by giving
Tribes, not the Government, the lead role in negotiating mining leases with third
parties”; (iii) failed to assign the government a “comprehensive managerial role” rising to
the level of Mitchell II; and (iv) provided “no guides or standards circumscribing the
Secretary’s affirmation of coal mining leases negotiated between a Tribe and a private
lessee” that were allegedly violated. Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 507-11. In discussing
Mitchell II, however, the Court continued to state that a network of statutes and
regulations could “impose judicially enforceable fiduciary duties upon the United States.”
Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 504-05. The Court “remanded for further proceedings consistent
with [the Navajo III] opinion.” Id. at 514.
III.
Against this backdrop, we must now consider whether the statutes and
regulations at issue in this appeal are reasonably amenable to the reading that they
mandate a right of recovery in damages against the government under the Indian
Tucker Act. While the Supreme Court held in Mitchell I that the General Allotment Act
alone is insufficient, the Court held in Mitchell II that the network of statutes and
regulations asserted by the allottees of land is reasonably amenable to mandating
compensation by the federal government for violations of its fiduciary responsibilities,
2006-5059 12
including the alleged mismanagement of timber resources. Similarly, in this case, while
the Court held in Navajo III that the IMLA of 1938, 25 U.S.C. § 399, and the IMDA of
1982 are insufficient, our task is to determine whether the network of other statutes and
regulations asserted by the Nation in this appeal is reasonably amenable to a reading
that they mandate compensation by the federal government for violating its common law
fiduciary trust duties and the duties imposed by the network. Only if the network is so
reasonably amenable, may we evaluate whether the United States government
breached its duties based on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
We note at the outset that this is not a case where the government had the
discretion to exercise control and did not do so. Rather, in this case, the government
exerted actual and significant control over the determination of the increased royalty
rate in the lease amendments because its approval was required by law. In March
1984, the Nation requested that the Secretary of the Interior, who was then William
Clark, make a reasonable adjustment of the royalty rate as provided by the coal lease.
In July 1985, the Secretary, who was now Donald Hodel, effectively refused to make
any permanent adjustments after meeting with Peabody’s representative, whom the
government conceded was “a former aide and friend of Secretary Hodel.” The Nation
sought Secretarial approval precisely because the government exercised control over
the leasing of coal resources. This active and effective assumption of control resulted
in, as the Court of Federal Claims found, “Navajo enter[ing] the process unarmed with
critical knowledge” and unaware “that it no longer had [a] competitive edge in its
bargaining while the companies were well aware of the fact.” Navajo I, 46 Fed. Cl. at
227. “Then after very briefly reviewing the merits of the proposals, the Secretary
2006-5059 13
approved lease amendments with royalty rates well below the rate that had previously
been determined appropriate by those agencies responsible for monitoring the federal
government’s relations with Native Americans.” Id. at 226-27. Faced with a claim for
damages for this exercise of control, the government now takes the opposite stance,
asserting that it had no control—statutory, regulatory, or otherwise—regarding the
determination of the royalty rate in lease amendments. The law does not allow the
government to have it both ways. That is, the government cannot assume
comprehensive control of the Nation’s coal, as it did here, and disclaim liability for
exercising such control.
A. Network Asserted by the Nation
The Nation presents an array of authorities that, it asserts, cumulatively establish
a money-mandating source for its claim. The Nation’s asserted network includes: (i) the
Treaty with the Navajo (“Treaty of 1849”), Sept. 9, 1849, 9 Stat. 974; (ii) the Treaty
Between the United States of America and the Navajo Tribe of Indians (“Treaty of
1868”), Aug. 12, 1868, 15 Stat. 667; (iii) Exec. Order of May 17, 1884 (“Executive Order
of 1884”); (iv) the Act of June 14, 1934 (“Act of 1934”), ch. 521, 48 Stat. 960; (v) the Act
of April 17, 1950 (“Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act of 1950”), ch. 92, 64 Stat. 44, 25
U.S.C. §§ 631-40; (vi) the Indian lands section, 30 U.S.C. § 1300, of the Act of August
3, 1977 (“Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977”), Pub. L. No. 95-87, 91
Stat. 445 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 30 U.S.C.); (vii) the regulations,
25 C.F.R. Part 216 Subpart B (1987) and 30 C.F.R. Part 750 (1987), promulgated
2006-5059 14
pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977; 2 and (viii) the Act
of January 12, 1983 (“Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1983”), 30
U.S.C. §§ 1701-57, and its implementing regulations, 30 C.F.R. Parts 212, 216, and 218
(1987), and 30 C.F.R. Part 206 Subpart F (1989).
The Nation also asserts that the following may contribute to its asserted network:
(ix) the policies of the Department of the Interior; (x) the provisions of Lease 8580; (xi)
the Act of February 5, 1948 (“Indian Lands Rights-of-Way Act of 1948”), 25 U.S.C.
§§ 323-28, and its implementing regulations, 25 C.F.R. Part 169 (1987); and (xii) the
IMLA of 1938 and its implementing regulations.
B. Relevance and Preservation of Network Elements Other Than IMLA of 1938
At the threshold, the government asserts that the statutes and regulations
asserted by the Nation are irrelevant because “Lease 8580 is an IMLA lease, and the
Secretary’s approval occurred pursuant to IMLA, not any of the provisions upon which
the Tribe now relies for its ‘network.’” U.S. Br. 34. Nothing within the IMLA of 1938
suggests, however, that it governs particular leases to the exclusion of all other statutes
and regulations. The repeal provision of the IMLA of 1938, § 7, applies only to acts or
parts of acts existing prior to and inconsistent with the IMLA. Moreover, the Act
expressly contemplates that its provisions interact with those of other laws. See IMLA
of 1938, § 7, 25 U.S.C. § 396d (“All operations under any oil, gas, or other mineral lease
issued pursuant to the terms of sections 396a to 396g of this title or any other Act
affecting restricted Indian lands shall be subject to the rules and regulations
2
In Navajo V, the Court of Federal Claims noted that the Nation’s asserted
network also included 30 C.F.R. Part 955. 68 Fed. Cl. at 808. Because the Nation has
not cited this regulation anywhere in its briefs in this appeal, we do not consider those
regulations here.
2006-5059 15
promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior.”). Therefore, the court rejects the
government’s argument that the IMLA of 1938 is the only possible substantive source of
law in this case.
As an alternative ground for affirmance, the government asserts that the Nation
waived its breach of trust claim based on a network of statutes and regulations. The
government’s waiver argument fails for several reasons.
First, after reviewing the complaint, summary judgment briefs, motion for
reconsideration briefs, briefs to this court in its first appeal, and briefs to the Supreme
Court, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that the Nation’s “advocacy on behalf of
jurisdiction always included the network argument, albeit in a secondary role.” Navajo
V, 68 Fed. Cl. at 810. The government does not dispute this conclusion, and that alone
should defeat its waiver argument. Similarly, we can find no error and thus affirm the
Court of Federal Claims on this issue.
Second, “[i]t is indeed the general rule that issues must be raised in lower courts
in order to be preserved as potential grounds of decision in higher courts. But this
principle does not demand the incantation of particular words; rather, it requires that the
lower court be fairly put on notice as to the substance of the issue.” Nelson v. Adams
USA, Inc., 529 U.S. 460, 469 (2000); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Sturman Indus., Inc.,
387 F.3d 1358, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that rationales of waiver doctrine are to
encourage parties to develop a full record of the case and to inform “the court about
potential errors so as to put the court on notice of mistakes that, if left uncorrected, may
result in reversal on appeal”). By asserting a breach of trust claim based on a network
of statutes and regulations including the IMLA of 1938, the Nation preserved a breach of
2006-5059 16
trust claim based on a network of statutes and regulations regardless of whether the
IMLA of 1938 is included. The waiver doctrine does not require, as the government
asserts, that the Nation preserve each particular network permutation.
Third, the “matter of what questions may be taken up and resolved for the first
time on appeal is one left primarily to the discretion of the courts of appeals, to be
exercised on the facts of individual cases.” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121
(1976); see also Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(“An appellate court retains case-by-case discretion over whether to apply waiver.”
(citations omitted)). For example, “[w]hen an issue or claim is properly before the court,
the court is not limited to the particular legal theories advanced by the parties, but rather
retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing
law.” Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 99 (1991).
We conclude that there was no applicable waiver, and we proceed to evaluate
the network of statutes and regulations asserted by the Nation in this case.
C. Non-Money-Mandating Elements of the Nation’s Asserted Network
For completeness, we briefly address the Nation’s assertion of elements (ix)
through (xii), none of which we find contribute to a money-mandating network.
The departmental policies cannot provide the substantive source of law that
mandates compensation for the government’s alleged breach of trust. As the Supreme
Court has noted, “[j]urisdiction over any suit against the Government requires a clear
statement from the United States waiving sovereign immunity, together with a claim
falling within the terms of the waiver.” Apache, 537 U.S. at 472. The Indian Tucker Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1505, provides the waiver of sovereign immunity in this case and states that
2006-5059 17
the claim must be “one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United
States, or Executive orders of the President, or is one which otherwise would be
cognizable in the Court of Federal Claims.” The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a),
defines claims cognizable in the Court of Federal Claims as “any claim against the
United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any
regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the
United States.” Neither the Indian Tucker Act nor the Tucker Act provides for claims
based on departmental policies, which are not regulations that have the force of law.
Cf. Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 789-90 (1981) (stating that Claims Manual of
Social Security Administration is not regulation, has no legal force, and does not bind
Administration); Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 234-36 (1974) (stating that Bureau of
Indian Affairs Manual has no force of law, but holding nonetheless, that Manual must be
followed under Administrative Procedure Act); Hamlet v. United States, 63 F.3d 1097,
1105-06 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (stating that internal personnel manual may, if three other
requirements are met, have the force and effect of law because matters relating to
agency personnel are “exempt from the strict procedural requirements found in the
[Administrative Procedure Act]”). Therefore, any claims based on departmental policies
would not fall within the scope of the asserted waiver of sovereign immunity.
For similar reasons, Lease 8580 does not constitute a substantive source of law
for the Nation’s breach of trust claim. The Nation asserts that a mineral lease is a
“fundamental document,” which may form part of the network establishing government
trust liability. It is true that the Supreme Court suggested that a breach of trust claim
under the Indian Tucker Act may arise from a “statute (or other fundamental
2006-5059 18
document).” See Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 225 (quoting Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United
States, 624 F.2d 981, 987 (Ct. Cl. 1980)) (emphasis added). It is also true that claims
founded “upon any express or implied contract with the United States” are cognizable
under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a). The Supreme Court, however, rejected this
exact argument in Navajo III.
[T]he Court of Federal Claims determined, and the Tribe does not
here dispute, that the Secretary is not a signatory to the Lease and
that the Lease is not contractually binding on him. We thus
perceive no basis for infusing the Secretary’s approval function
under § 396a with substantive standards that might be derived from
his adjustment authority under the Lease, and certainly no basis for
concluding that an alleged “breach” of those standards is
cognizable in an action for money damages under the Indian
Tucker Act.
537 U.S. at 510 n.13. This court perceives no basis or authority for concluding
otherwise.
Next, the Indian Lands Rights-of-Way Act of 1948 and its implementing
regulations do not provide a relevant substantive source of law. The Act empowers the
Secretary of the Interior “to grant rights-of-way for all purposes, subject to such
conditions as he may prescribe” and to “the consent of the proper tribal officials.” 25
U.S.C. §§ 323-24. Seizing on the Supreme Court’s discussion of these statutes in
Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 223, the Nation in this case asserts that the government’s
“comprehensive control over Indian rights-of-way augments its control over Navajo coal
development even more than it did over timber production in Mitchell II.” Nation Br. 36.
The rights-of-way statutes, however, did not augment the government’s control over
timber production; rather, the Court cited the statutes as a point of comparison. See
Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 223 (concluding that timber management statutes and
2006-5059 19
regulations establish comprehensive government control and then, stating that
“Department exercises comparable control over grants of rights-of-way on Indian lands
held in trust”). Similarly, in this case, while other regulations that are properly part of the
Nation’s asserted network may require permits for surface coal mining operations
activities for “lands affected by the construction of new roads or the improvement or use
of existing roads to gain access,” see infra Part III.D.3 (30 C.F.R. § 750.11(a) (1987)),
the Indian Lands Rights-of-Way Act of 1948 and its implementing regulations do not
augment the government’s control of the Nation’s coal and thus are not part of the
relevant network.
Lastly, the Nation asserts the IMLA of 1938 and its regulations, 25 C.F.R. Part
211 (1987) and Part 216 Subpart A (1987). This court’s consideration of the IMLA of
1938 and its regulations, however, is foreclosed by Navajo IV, 347 F.3d at 1332
(directing Court of Federal Claims to consider whether network of other statutes and
regulations apart from IMLA of 1938 establishes cognizable breach of trust claim).
While there is persuasive force in Judge Newman’s dissent stating “[t]hat the Indian
Mineral Leasing Act is insufficient standing alone does not bar adding its weight to the
totality of statutes, treaties, and regulations governing mineral leasing,” id. at 1333
(Newman, J., dissenting), the previous decision is law of the case.
Accordingly, we find that the departmental policies, the provisions of Lease 8580,
the Indian Lands Rights-of-Way Act of 1948 and its implementing regulations, and the
IMLA of 1938 and its implementing regulations cannot be substantive sources of law on
which the Nation may base its breach of trust claim.
2006-5059 20
D. Money-Mandating Elements of the Nation’s Asserted Network
1. Existence of Trust Relationship and Trust Language
There is no question the Treaty of 1849 establishes a general trust relationship.
Specifically, the treaty states that the Navajo “tribe was lawfully placed under the
exclusive jurisdiction and protection of the Government of the said United States, and
that they are now, and will forever remain, under the aforesaid jurisdiction and
protection” and “that the Government of the United States shall so legislate and act as
to secure the permanent prosperity and happiness of said Indians.” Art. I, XI. While this
general trust relationship is potentially reinforcing of “the conclusion that the relevant
statute or regulation imposes fiduciary duties, that relationship alone is insufficient to
support jurisdiction under the Indian Tucker Act.” Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 506 (citation
omitted).
There must be “specific rights-creating or duty-imposing statutory or regulatory
prescriptions. Those prescriptions need not, however, expressly provide for money
damages; the availability of such damages may be inferred.” Id. In Apache, the Court
found it significant that a statute provided that the Fort Apache Military Reservation
would be “held by the United States in trust for the White Mountain Apache Tribe.” See
537 U.S. 468-69, 474-75 (quoting the Act of Jan. 24, 1923, ch. 42, 42 Stat. 1187). In
Mitchell II, the statutes and regulations gave the government “full responsibility to
manage Indian resources and land for the benefit of the Indians.” 463 U.S. at 224; see
also Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 504-05 (discussing Mitchell II); Apache, 537 U.S. at 474
(same). Even the statute at issue in Mitchell I went beyond the general trust
relationship and established a “limited” trust relationship by stating that “the United
2006-5059 21
States does and will hold the land thus allotted . . . in trust for the sole use and benefit of
the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made.” 445 U.S. at 540-42 (quoting
General Allotment Act); see Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 224-25 (discussing Mitchell I limited
trust relationship and general trust relationship); see also Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 504
(discussing Mitchell I); Apache, 537 U.S. at 473 (same).
In contrast, the Court found that the IMLA of 1938 and its regulations did not
satisfy this statutory and regulatory language threshold in Navajo III: “Nor do they even
establish the ‘limited trust relationship’ existing under the [General Allotment Act]; no
provision of the IMLA [of 1938] or its regulations contains any trust language.” 537 U.S.
at 508. Justice Ginsburg emphasized that this lack of trust language set Navajo III apart
from Apache. Apache, 537 U.S. at 479-81 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (comparing
existence of trust language in Apache statute with absence of such in Navajo III statute
and regulations).
Where the IMLA of 1938 and its regulations failed, however, the network of other
statutes and regulations asserted by the Nation succeeds. The coal that is the subject
of Lease 8580 and its amendments sits on the Nation’s “reservation lands, which are
held for it in trust by the United States.” Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 495. The Treaty of 1868
established the Navajo reservation, setting a territory “apart for the use and occupation
of the Navajo tribe of Indians.” 15 Stat. 667 at art. II, XIII. The Executive Order of 1884
added lands from Arizona and Utah to the Navajo “reservation for Indian purposes.”
The Act of 1934 confirmed the “exterior boundaries of the Navajo Indian Reservation, in
Arizona,” stating that the lands were to be “permanently withdrawn from all forms of
entry or disposal for the benefit of the Navajo.” 48 Stat. 960 § 1. The Act of 1934 also
2006-5059 22
authorized the Secretary of the Interior “to accept relinquishments and reconveyance to
the United States of such privately owned lands,” which would “be held in trust for the
Navajo Tribe of Indians.” Id. § 2. The Act of December 22, 1974 (“Act of 1974”), 88
Stat. 1712, 25 U.S.C. §§ 640d to 640d-31, confirmed that the lands described in the Act
of 1934 “shall be held in trust by the United States exclusively for the Navajo Tribe and
as a part of the Navajo Reservation.” 25 U.S.C. § 640d-9. Because “[m]inerals and
standing timber are constituent elements of the land itself,” United States v. Shoshone
Tribe of Indians of Wind River Reservation, 304 U.S. 111, 116 (1938), and because
there is no language severing coal from the land held in trust, the language stating that
the government holds lands in trust for the Nation applies equally to the Nation’s coal
located on that land.
Therefore, the substantive sources of law cited by the Nation contain explicit trust
language. Because such language is necessary but not sufficient for an Indian Tucker
Act breach of trust claim, we proceed to evaluate whether the network of statutes and
regulations asserted by the Nation establishes specific fiduciary or other duties that can
fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation for damages sustained. Navajo III,
537 U.S. at 506.
2. Control of Coal Resource Planning
The government assumed coal resource planning responsibilities in the Navajo-
Hopi Rehabilitation Act of 1950. 3 Specifically, the Act authorized and directed the
3
As the government asserts, it is true that the regulations promulgated in
2001 pursuant to the Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act do not apply to mineral leases. 25
C.F.R. § 162.103 (2006) (“These regulations do not apply to . . . mineral leases.”). This
limit speaks, however, only to the scope of the regulations, not the Act. Therefore, the
Act may contribute to the Nation’s asserted network.
2006-5059 23
government to embark on “a program of basic improvements for the conservation and
development of the resources of the Navajo and Hopi Indians, . . . and the supplying of
means to be used in their rehabilitation.” 25 U.S.C. § 631. The Act thus appropriated
$500,000 and “funds from time to time appropriated pursuant to this subchapter” for
“[s]urveys and studies of timber, coal, mineral, and other physical and human
resources” and mandated that the Nation “be kept informed and afforded opportunity to
consider from their inception plans pertaining to the program authorized.” Id. §§ 631,
638 (emphasis added). In the context of the Act, it is clear that the government
conducted such surveys and studies of the Nation’s coal resources for the purpose of
developing the coal economically.
3. Control of Coal Mining Operations
The regulations promulgated pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 also establish that the government assumed comprehensive
control of coal mining operations. In 1977, the Department of the Interior promulgated
what would become 25 C.F.R. Part 216 Subpart B (1987). 4 These regulations
established detailed “performance standards . . . to each coal mining operation on
Indian lands on or after December 16, 1977,” including specifying requirements for
signs and markers, postmining use of land, backfilling and grading, waste disposal,
4
As discussed in supra Part III.C, Navajo IV forecloses this panel from
considering Subpart A of 25 C.F.R. Part 216 as part of the Tribe’s network. Subpart B,
however, was promulgated pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977, not the IMLA of 1938. Compare 34 Fed. Reg. 813 (Jan. 18, 1969) (codified as
amended at 25 C.F.R. Part 216 Subpart A) with 42 Fed. Reg. 63,395 (Dec. 16, 1977)
(codified as amended at 25 C.F.R. Part 216 Subpart B). Therefore, this court considers
the regulations of Subpart B as properly asserted by the Nation.
2006-5059 24
topsoil handling, protection of hydrologic systems, revegetation, and steep-slope
mining. Id. §§ 216.103 to 216.111.
Similarly in 1984, the Department of the Interior promulgated what would become
30 C.F.R. Part 750 (1987). These regulations established numerous surface coal
mining operations responsibilities for the Office of Surface Mining, the Bureau of Land
Management, the Minerals Management Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The
responsibilities included approving and disapproving permits, inspection and
enforcement, protecting non-coal resources, approving and disapproving coal
exploration and mining plans, administering mining leases, collecting and accounting for
royalties, and furnishing copies of notices and orders to mineral owners. 30 C.F.R.
§§ 750.6, 750.18 (1987). In addition, the regulations specifically make the Bureau of
Indian Affairs responsible for “providing representation for Indian mineral owners and
other Indian land owners in matters relating to surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on Indian lands.” Id. § 750.6(d).
4. Control of the Management and Collection of Coal Mining Royalties
In addition, the government assumed comprehensive control of the management
and collection of royalties from coal mining. Section 303 of the Federal Oil and Gas
Royalty Management Act of 1983 directed the Secretary of the Interior to
study the question of the adequacy of royalty management for coal,
uranium and other energy and nonenergy minerals on Federal and
Indian lands. The study shall include proposed legislation if the
Secretary determines that such legislation is necessary to ensure
prompt and proper collection of revenues owed to the United
States, the States and Indian tribes or Indian allottees from the
sale, lease or other disposal of such minerals.
2006-5059 25
Concluding that the existing auditing systems “should be extended to cover solid
minerals royalty management in addition to oil and gas” and that new legislation was not
required to do so, 51 Fed. Reg. 15,764 (Apr. 28, 1986), the Department of the Interior
promulgated regulations for solid minerals such as coal, requiring the maintenance and
access to records, the accounting and auditing of royalties, and the collection of
royalties. See 30 C.F.R. Parts 212, 216, 218 (1987).
Also pursuant to the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1983, the
Department of the Interior promulgated 30 C.F.R. Part 206 Subpart F (1989), which
“prescribes the procedures to establish the value, for royalty purposes, of all coal from
Federal and Indian Tribal and allotted leases.” 30 C.F.R. § 206.250(a) (1989). “These
rules largely continue past practice for coal valuation,” 54 Fed. Reg. 1492 (Jan. 13,
1989) (stating purpose and background in final rule); adopt “valuation methods [that]
would yield a reasonable and long-term maximum rate of return for both Federal and
Indian leases,” 52 Fed. Reg. 1840 (Jan. 15, 1987) (stating purpose and background of
proposed rulemaking notice); and “are intended to ensure that the trust responsibilities
of the United States with respect to the administration of Indian coal leases are
discharged in accordance with the requirements of the governing mineral leasing laws,
treaties, and lease terms,” 30 C.F.R. § 206.250(d).
Citing Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 508 n.12, the government emphasizes that 30
C.F.R. Part 206 Subpart F “was not promulgated until 1989, after the events at issue in
this case,” and as such, “until 1989 the regulation was just that -- a practice -- and
therefore irrelevant to Tucker Act jurisdiction.” U.S. Br. 42-43. While it is true that the
regulation was adopted “after the events at issue,” Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 508 n.12, the
2006-5059 26
government does not dispute that the asserted sections of 30 C.F.R. Part 206 Subpart F
describe actual practices that existed at the time of the lease amendments and that
such practices are within the Department of the Interior’s authority. Where the
government exercises actual control within its authority, neither Congress nor the
agency needs to codify such actual control for a fiduciary trust relationship that is
enforceable by money damages to arise. See Apache, 537 U.S. at 475 (finding “a fair
inference that an obligation to preserve the property improvements was incumbent on
the United States as trustee” where government exercised its discretionary authority to
supervise and occupy property); see also Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 225 (“[W]here the
Federal Government takes on or has control or supervision over tribal monies or
properties, the fiduciary relationship normally exists with respect to such monies or
properties (unless Congress has provided otherwise).”). Therefore, the practices
described by 30 C.F.R. Part 206 Subpart F are relevant and support a finding that the
government had comprehensive control of the management and collection of royalties
from coal mining.
5. Control of Coal Leasing and Liabilities Arising Thereunder
We note that specific control of coal leasing is not a prerequisite for a breach of
trust claim in this case. As discussed in supra, Part III.D.2-4, the language of the
statutes and regulations of the Nation’s asserted network demonstrates that the
government exercises comprehensive control over coal resource planning, coal mining
operations, and coal royalty management and collection. As Mitchell II held regarding
the harvesting and management of timber, 463 U.S. at 222, virtually every aspect of the
coal located on the Nation’s lands is under the federal government’s control. It can
2006-5059 27
fairly be interpreted from the government’s comprehensive control of the Nation’s coal
that the Nation’s asserted network establishes a breach of trust claim under the Indian
Tucker Act.
The government nonetheless argues that the asserted network must establish
control or supervision over coal leasing. It is true that the Supreme Court stated that
“the IMLA [of 1938] and its regulations do not assign to the Secretary managerial control
over coal leasing.” Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 508. The government, however, cites no
authority for the proposition that control over the greater (e.g., coal resources) does not
imply control over the lesser (e.g., leasing of such coal) in the Indian Tucker Act context.
Indeed, the Court stated in Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 225 (quotation marks and citation
omitted), that where “the Federal Government takes on or has control or supervision
over tribal monies or properties, the fiduciary relationship normally exists with respect to
such monies or properties (unless Congress has provided otherwise).” Accord Apache,
537 U.S. at 475 (finding that control over property implied “obligation to preserve the
property improvements”). In this case, the government exercised blanket control over
the Nation’s coal resources, which could not be developed without the clear and positive
approval of the Secretary. The government’s argument that specific control of coal
leasing is required for a money-mandating breach of trust claim is thus unpersuasive.
Even if it carried weight, that argument is flawed as applied to this case. The
Indian lands section, 30 U.S.C. § 1300, of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 controls the content of coal leases. Subsections (c) and (d) direct the
Secretary to incorporate interim and permanent environmental protection standards for
“all existing and new leases issued for coal on Indian lands.” Subsection (f) also states
2006-5059 28
that “[a]ny change required” by these subsections “in the terms and conditions of any
coal lease on Indian lands existing on August 3, 1977, shall require the approval of the
Secretary.” The subsequently promulgated regulation accordingly amends all leases of
coal on Indian lands to comply with the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 “and all regulations promulgated thereunder, including those codified at 30 C.F.R.
Part 750.” 30 C.F.R. § 750.20(a) (1987). The government thus exercises actual control
over the terms and conditions of coal mining leases, including those already in
existence.
Further, the Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act of 1950 contemplates government
liability for leases of Indian lands requiring approval of the Secretary. Section 635(a) of
Title 25 states:
Any restricted Indian lands owned by the Navajo Tribe, members
thereof, or associations of such members, . . . may be leased by
the Indian owners, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior,
for public, religious, educational, recreational, or business
purposes, including the development or utilization of natural
resources in connection with operations under such leases.
25 U.S.C. § 635(a) (emphasis added). Subsection (a) makes no mention of
government liability. In contrast, subsection (b) differentiates the respective
responsibilities by stating explicitly that “land owned in fee simple by the Navajo Tribe
may be leased, sold, or otherwise disposed of by the sole authority of the Navajo Tribal
Council, . . . and such disposition shall create no liability on the part of the United
States.” Id. § 635(b) (emphasis added). Similarly, subsection (c) states:
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to transfer, upon request
of the Navajo Tribal Council, . . . legal title to or a leasehold interest
in any unallotted lands held for the Navajo Indian Tribe, and
thereafter the United States shall have no responsibility or liability
2006-5059 29
for, but on request of the tribe shall render advice and assistance
in, the management, use, or disposition of such lands.
Id. § 635(c) (emphasis added). The Nation thus asserts that “by expressly exempting
the United States from liability for similar transactions under subsections 635(b) and
(c),” it is a “fair inference” that the United States “intended to shoulder liability and
responsibility” for leases of Indian lands under subsection (a) dealing with “the
development or utilization of natural resources” and requiring approval of the Secretary.
Nation Br. 47. The government does not dispute the Nation’s interpretation, and we
agree that government liability from the approval of such leases is a “fair interpretation.”
The Nation’s asserted network thus demonstrates that the government controls
the leasing of the Nation’s coal resources and that the government is responsible for the
liabilities arising thereunder.
E. Purposes of Asserted Network
Interpreting the asserted network to mandate a right of recovery in damages
against the government in this case is consistent with the purposes of the statutes and
regulations. First, the government entered into the Treaty of 1849 “to secure the
permanent prosperity and happiness of said Indians.” 9 Stat. 974 at art. I, XI. Second,
the Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act of 1950 authorized and directed the Secretary of the
Interior to undertake “a program of basic improvements for the conservation and
development of the resources of the Navajo and Hopi Indians”
to further the purposes of existing treaties with the Navajo Indians,
to provide facilities, employment, and services essential in
combating hunger, disease, poverty, and demoralization among the
members of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes, to make available the
resources of their reservations for use in promoting a self-
supporting economy and self-reliant communities, and to lay a
stable foundation on which these Indians can engage in diversified
2006-5059 30
economic activities and ultimately attain standards of living
comparable with those enjoyed by other citizens.
25 U.S.C. § 631. Third, the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Federal Oil and
Gas Royalty Management Act of 1983 recognize that the actual practices of the
Department of Interior, at the time of the lease amendments in this case, used methods
to “yield a reasonable and long-term maximum rate of return for both Federal and Indian
leases” and “intended to ensure that the trust responsibilities of the United States with
respect to the administration of Indian coal leases are discharged in accordance with
the requirements of the governing mineral leasing laws, treaties, and lease terms.” 52
Fed. Reg. 1840 (Jan. 15, 1987) (stating purpose and background of proposed
rulemaking notice); 30 C.F.R. § 206.250(d) (1989). Therefore, the purposes of the
asserted network of statutes and regulations support finding a fiduciary relationship
between the government and the Nation that is money-mandating under the Indian
Tucker Act.
The government appears to rely on the statement in Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 508,
that the IMLA of 1938 “aims to enhance tribal self-determination by giving Tribes, not
the Government, the lead role in negotiating mining leases with third parties.” While “we
cannot ignore the tension between IMLA’s two objectives,” Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 517
(Souter, J., dissenting), this court would err through overbroad application of the Navajo
III holding. The Court in Navajo III interpreted the government’s duties based only on
the IMLA of 1938 and its regulations, IMDA of 1982, and 25 U.S.C. § 399. None of
these three statutes are part of the asserted network of statutes and regulations
discussed in supra, Part III.D, that forms the basis of the Nation’s money-mandating
claim in this appeal.
2006-5059 31
F. Scope and Breach of Government’s Trust Duties
Even with a substantive source of law that can fairly be interpreted as mandating
compensation for a breach of trust, the government asserts that the breach alleged by
the Nation does not fall within the scope of the government’s fiduciary trust duties.
Specifically, the government asserts that the Nation must allege a violation of a specific
rights-creating or duty-imposing statute or regulation and that the common law of trusts
cannot be applied. These arguments fail for two independent reasons. In addition, the
undisputed facts as determined by the Court of Federal Claims demonstrate that the
government breached its trust duties. This court thus holds that the Nation is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. SmithKline, 403 F.3d at 1337 (stating that if “both parties
sought summary judgment” and if “this court determines that no material facts remain in
dispute, [this court] may proceed to determine entitlement to judgment under the law”).
First, the Supreme Court heard, considered, and rejected these arguments by
the government in Apache. See Apache U.S. Br., 2002 WL 1559747, at *35-43. It is
true that in determining whether there is a “claim cognizable under the Indian Tucker
Act,” “the analysis must train on specific rights-creating or duty-imposing statutory or
regulatory prescriptions.” Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 506. “But once that focus [for the trust
relationship i]s provided, general trust law [i]s considered in drawing the inference that
Congress intended damages to remedy a breach of obligation.” Apache, 537 U.S. at
477. The Court thus found in Apache that common-law trust duties helped to define the
“contours of the United States’ fiduciary responsibilities.” See id. 474-75.
While it is true that the 1960 Act does not, like the statutes cited in
that case, expressly subject the Government to duties of
management and conservation, the fact that the property occupied
by the United States is expressly subject to a trust supports a fair
2006-5059 32
inference that an obligation to preserve the property improvements
was incumbent on the United States as trustee. This is so because
elementary trust law, after all, confirms the commonsense
assumption that a fiduciary actually administering trust property
may not allow it to fall into ruin on his watch.
Id. at 475. Likewise, in Mitchell II, the Court stated that “a fiduciary relationship
necessarily arises when the Government assumes such elaborate control over forests
and property belonging to Indians.” 463 U.S. at 225 (noting that “[a]ll of the necessary
elements of a common-law trust are present” even though “‘nothing is said expressly in
the authorizing or underlying statute (or other fundamental document) about a trust
fund, or a trust or fiduciary connection’” (quoting Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United
States, 224 Ct. Cl. 171, 183 (1980))). In this case, the government’s arguments are
identical to those it made in Apache. Therefore, this court rejects the government’s
arguments and holds that the common law trust duties of care, candor, and loyalty help
define the fiduciary responsibilities in this case. In Navajo I, the Court of Federal Claims
found that the government violated these basic duties of care, loyalty, and candor owed
a beneficiary by a trustee. See 46 Fed. Cl. at 226-27 (“Let there be no mistake.
Notwithstanding the formal outcome of this decision, we find that the Secretary has
indeed breached these basic fiduciary duties.”). We agree that the government violated
these common-law trust duties.
Second, the asserted network of statutes and regulations enumerates specific
duties that the government violated. The Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act of 1950
provides that the “Tribal Councils of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes and the Indian
communities affected shall be kept informed and afforded opportunity to consider from
their inception plans pertaining to the program authorized,” including the “program of
2006-5059 33
basic improvements for the conservation and development of the resources of the
Navajo and Hopi Indians.” 25 U.S.C. §§ 631, 638. Similarly, 30 C.F.R. § 750.6(d)
(1987), promulgated pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977, specifically makes the Bureau of Indian Affairs responsible for “providing
representation for Indian mineral owners and other Indian land owners in matters
relating to surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands.” In this
case, the Court of Federal Claims found that the government met “secretly with parties
having interests adverse to those of the [Nation], adopt[ed] the third parties’ desired
course of action in lieu of action favorable to the [Nation], and then misle[d] the [Nation]
concerning these events.” Navajo I, 46 Fed. Cl. at 226. Under these facts, the
government violated its duty to keep the Nation informed regarding the development of
its coal resources and to provide the Nation representation in a matter related to coal
mining operations.
In addition, the Indian lands section of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 mandates that the Secretary “shall include and enforce terms
and conditions . . . as may be requested by the Indian tribe in such leases.” 30 U.S.C.
§ 1300(e); see also 30 C.F.R. 750.20 (1987) (using nearly identical language). This
language indicates Congress’ apparent desire that terms and conditions requested by
the Nation be included in leases. Cf. Agwiak v. United States, 347 F.3d 1375, 1380
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“We have repeatedly recognized that the use of the word ‘shall’
generally makes a statute money-mandating.”). The Nation has cited legislative history
to support this interpretation: “This is Indian land. There is a section in this bill that
deals specifically with how the Indians will be protected, and so forth, as they negotiate.”
2006-5059 34
123 Cong. Rec. S15,575 (daily ed. May 19, 1977) (statement of Sen. Goldwater). In
this case, the Nation’s request was reasonable. The Nation did not ask the Secretary to
incorporate an outrageous term or condition. Rather, the Nation asked that the royalty
rate be adjusted to a reasonable level, and Peabody had consented to such a
reasonable adjustment explicitly in Lease 8580. Prior to the ex parte interference, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs had deemed proper and approved an increase in the royalty
rate to 20%. Despite the mandate of § 1300(e) and the Nation’s request for an
adjustment to a reasonable royalty rate, however, it is undisputed that Secretary Hodel
refused to make this royalty adjustment permanent after meeting with Peabody’s
representative, whom the government conceded was “a former aide and friend of
Secretary Hodel.” The Nation thus entered negotiations with Peabody “unarmed with
critical knowledge” and unaware “that it no longer had [a] competitive edge in its
bargaining while the companies were well aware of the fact.” Navajo I, 46 Fed. Cl. at
227. “Then after very briefly reviewing the merits of the proposals, the Secretary
approved lease amendments with royalty rates well below the rate that had previously
been determined appropriate by those agencies responsible for monitoring the federal
government’s relations with Native Americans.” Id. at 226-27. Under these facts, the
government violated its duty to include and enforce terms and conditions requested by
the Nation.
Similarly, in Escondido Mutual Water Co. v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians,
466 U.S. 765 (1984), the Supreme Court held that requested terms must be
incorporated where mandated by a statute. The statute at issue in Escondido placed a
specific condition on the power of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
2006-5059 35
(“Commission”) to issue licenses for “hydroelectric project works located on the public
lands and reservations of the United States, including lands held in trust for Indians.” Id.
at 767. Specifically, § 4(e) of the Federal Power Act, 41 Stat. 1066 (codified as
amended at 16 U.S.C. § 797(e)), stated that the licenses “shall be subject to and
contain such conditions as the Secretary of the department under whose supervision
such reservation falls shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization
of such reservations” (emphasis added). Based on this statutory language, the Court
stated that “Congress’ apparent desire that the Secretary’s conditions ‘shall’ be included
in the license must therefore be given effect unless there are clear expressions of
legislative intent to the contrary.” Id. at 772. Finding that Congress “was no doubt
interested in centralizing federal licensing authority into one agency” and that “it did not
intend to relieve the secretaries of all responsibility for ensuring that reservations under
their respective supervision were adequately protected,” the Court concluded that there
was no clear legislative intent to the contrary. See id. at 773-75. In addition, the Court
was untroubled by the ability of the Secretary to require “the Commission to include the
Secretary’s conditions in the license over its objection” because the statute limited the
types of conditions that the Secretary could require to those “reasonably related to the
protection of the reservation and its people.” See id. at 776-79.
The government appears to assert that the Secretary’s duty to include and
enforce terms and conditions requested by the Nation under § 1300(e) is limited to
environmental protection standards. It is true that the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 focuses on environmental protection, not royalty rates. Neither
§ 1300(e) nor its companion regulation, however, contains any subject matter limitation.
2006-5059 36
The government also asserts that § 1300(e) does not apply because Lease 8580 did
not issue after August 3, 1977. The government, however, fails to note the lease
amendments, which the parties executed and the Secretary approved after August 3,
1977. While § 1300(e) and its companion regulation do not specify whether the
statutory requirement should apply to the lease amendments in this case, this court
concludes in the affirmative. The lease amendments to Lease 8580 did not incorporate
a minor change. Rather, the package of amendments adjusted the royalty rates for
three different leases, resolved a broad range of issues between Peabody and the
Nation, and added 90 million tons of coal to the 200 million tons originally leased from
the Nation’s reservation lands in Arizona. Without its exhibits, the amendments
numbered more pages than the original Lease 8580. Therefore, while an amendment in
form, the agreement was in substance a new lease. Indeed, within the agreement, the
parties acknowledged that the parties could have executed a separate lease or leases
to address the same issues, and that they chose to do so instead in a document that
amended Lease 8580. Under these circumstances, this court holds that § 1300(e)
applied to the lease amendments at issue in this case and thus, imposed a duty on the
Secretary to include and enforce a reasonable royalty rate.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the network of statutes and
regulations asserted by the Nation identify substantive sources of law that establish
specific trust duties and can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation for
damages sustained as a result of a breach of the duties imposed by the governing law.
In addition, we conclude that the Nation has alleged and, based on the undisputed
2006-5059 37
factual findings of the Court of Federal Claims in Navajo I, has demonstrated that the
government violated its common law trust duties of care, candor, and loyalty; its duty
under the Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act of 1950 to keep the Nation informed regarding
the development of its coal resources; its duty under the regulations promulgated
pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to provide the
Nation representation in a matter related to coal mining operations; and its duty under
the Indian Lands section of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to
include and enforce terms and conditions requested by the Nation.
Accordingly, this court holds that the Nation has a cognizable money-mandating
claim against the United States for the alleged breaches of trust and that the
government breached its trust duties. We reverse the order of the Court of Federal
Claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED
Each party shall bear its own costs for this appeal.
2006-5059 38