Dissent

The case ended up ruling 6-3 in the tribes favor, the 3 remaining judges stated that there was no enumerated relationship of trust laid out between the tribe and the United States government. They went on to say that since there was no relationship nothing was ever breached therefore the tribe had no ground to sue. It puzzles me that even though there were several other cases that set precedent for something similar to this case they never mentioned anything about them, they also never acknowledged the fact that the reasoning behind the creation of the Indian Mineral Lease Act of 1982 was to give the federal government the power to approve a tribe’s request to lease out their land in exchange that the government would look after all procedures and make sure the land was looked after. It’s obvious that there’s a trust relationship established but yet the justices still never mentioned this fact. "The United States breached its fiduciary obligations to the Navajo Nation in connection with these coal leases with Peabody." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=Fed&navby=case&no=005086&exact=1

My Argument

In my opinion, I completely and with no doubt agree with the decision of the court. As I stated in my last blog in a prior case the court acknowledge its responsibility to uphold the trust the Native American tribes lie within it. This gives me no reason to question the outcome of the case; all the Secretary had to do was his job. I’m convinced there was an underlying reason for the decision of the Secretary like money. Regardless of whether the relationship of trust was enumerated or not there is no question that one lied between the Secretary and the tribe, for him to simply disregard this relationship and act in the interest of Peabody is questionable to me.

“This Court and several other federal courts have consistently recognized that the existence of a trust relationship between the United States and an Indian or Indian tribe includes as a fundamental incident the right of an injured beneficiary to sue the trustee for damages resulting from a breach of the trust.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=Fed&navby=case&no=005086&exact=1

This quote lays out reasoning for suing the government for the Secretary’s actions, it seems like time and time again the representatives of the American government try to slip past this.

Rules of Law

I don't know that there is one specific precedent set in this case, as there have been several cases geared towards Native American tribes and The United States. But, in my research it seems that this was the first case regarding the Indians Mineral Lease Act and the trust that lies within the Secretary of the Interior to make a decision in the best interest of the tribe, this case really set precedence for future cases regarding these issues. In prior cases the court acknowledged that, "this Court has recognized the distinctive obligation of trust incumbent upon the Government in its dealings with these dependent and sometimes exploited people."http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=Fed&navby=case&no=005086&exact=1

Reasoning of the Court

My analysis of the logic of the court is probably very different than others. Being Native American, I know exactly how and why this case is so important to the Navajos. Having a place that we can call our home is just as important to us as it is to anyone else in the world, so when we lease it out to others all we want is to be able to trust that the proper steps are going to be taken. When I read about this case I couldn't help but to think that there was some type of money involved when the Secretary decided to go with what Peabody urged him to do. It seems to me that the justices who voted against the tribe don't really know how much this land means to the tribe and how the trust they lay into the Secretary was pushed to the side. Maybe they thought that the tribe was just trying to get something out of the whole situation, whether it is money, pride, or satisfaction. Whatever it was I'm glad that the ruling was in the majority of the tribe, now maybe the Secretary will think twice before pushing an issue to the side.
"The United States, through the Secretary of the Interior and the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), supervises and regulates the development and sale of mineral resources on Indian reservation lands, pursuant to the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, 25 U.S.C. �396 et seq., the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, 25 U.S.C. ��2101-2108, and implementing regulations." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=Fed&navby=case&no=005086&exact=1

The Decision of the Court

The court found that the government was liable and a trust relationship did exist, monetary relief was ordered because of the breach of trust. Out of the 9 justices, 6 voted for the tribe and 3 voted against the tribe. The reason why they voted for the tribe is because the reasoning behind the Indian Mineral Lease Act is so the Secretary of the Interior would look after the tribe’s best interest. The IMLA established a relationship of trust between the government and the tribe, by acting in the interest of Peabody the government breached that trust. “Let there be no mistake. Notwithstanding the formal outcome of this decision, we find that the Secretary has indeed breached these basic fiduciary duties.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=Fed&navby=case&no=005086&exact=1

The remaining 3 justices stated that the tribe can’t prove that there was ever a fiduciary relationship because it was never expressed or enumerated so therefore there is no break of contract. As a result there should be no monetary relief granted to the tribe.

Illicit Crime

Illicit Crime will never go away. Especially on the scale that it’s at today, this is a problem that will haunt not just one single country but the world and more and more each day. Will we as the people of the world ever be able to put trust into our world leaders, or will we always have a thought of doubt and fear in our minds? To say that we will be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel would be naïve and foolish, we have to keep in mind that every person has their own agenda. We know this will be a pattern that the world follows for as long as the entertainment industry, fashion industry, technology, drug industry and almost any other one out there that keep producing merchandise in demand. People are now stuck in a position that if they want to survive and keep an income for their families they must break the law. Most likely, even if they do decide one day they want to find another way to make an income they would probably have a very hard time getting away from who they work with.

Everyone has seen counterfeit hand bags and wallets being sold at the local swap-meet, out of the back of vans or just on the street. The fact that a person can walk around with a counterfeit designer bag gets on my nerves, the only reason is because my career is in the fashion industry. Designers shouldn’t have to worry about getting ideas and inspirations stolen from them by some cheap warehouse product. One day I want to be able to design and sell my own apparel but I want it to be mine. Fashion pieces are made for expression of individuality and how can this be when knock offs are being made by the thousands a day.

Issues of the Case

Issues of the Case
There are two points to this case; the first is the source of the problem. The Indian Mineral Lease Act of 1938 allowed Native American tribes the power to lease tribal land for mining purposes with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. In 1964, the Navajo tribe entered into a contract of lease with the Peabody Coal Mining Company, the contract included an agreement for 37.5 cents for every ton of coal mined and was up for renegotiation in 20 years. When the 20 years came around the tribe’s royalty was only worth 2% of what Peabody was making, also Congress had set a new minimum standard of 12.5% in 1977. Therefore, the tribe requested the Secretary to set a new rate for Peabody, the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs acting as a representative for the Secretary made a preliminary decision and set the rate at 20%.

After the temporary rate was set is where we get into our second point of the case, representatives of Peabody urged the Secretary to either reverse the decision or delay it, the Secretary did so and advised both parties to continue negotiation, "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." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=Fed&navby=case&no=005086&exact=1

The two parties ended up settling on a rate of 12.5%, but this isn’t the issue at hand. In 1993 the Navajo Nation sued the United States Government for breach of trust in the Court of Federal Claims, the court ended up ruling in the government’s favor because it is no where stated that the government has a regulatory or statutory obligation even though the Secretary did act in Peabody’s favor. The tribe then took the case to the Court of Appeals saying that general reason for the Indian Mineral Lease Act is for the government to look after the well being of the tribe, this time the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the tribe. Ultimately, it was decided that while the Secretary should act in benefit of the tribe, the tribe must "identify a substantive source of law that establishes specific fiduciary or other duties." http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1375/