From BIGMTLIST
The following is from Arizona Central at http://www.azcentral.com/news/0618navajo.shtml.
It is repeated here for those without web access. Others should
follow
the link.
The full text of the decision can be found at
http://www.vcilp.org/Fed-Ct/Circuit/9th/opinions/9815306.htm
and is too long to post here, but here is an exerpt:
=====================
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALVIN CLINTON; TEDDY BEGAY;
PEGGY SCOTT; VERNA CLINTON;
CARLOS BEGAY; IRENA BABBITT
LANE; GLENNA BEGAY; JOHN B. No. 98-15306
NEZ,
D.C. No.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
CV 97-02167-EHC
v.
OPINION
BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary of the
Interior,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
December 7, 1998--San Francisco, California
Filed June 17, 1999
Before: Myron H. Bright,1 Betty B. Fletcher, and
David R. Thompson, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Thompson
_________________________________________________________________
1 The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior Circuit Judge for the
Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.
6479
OPINION
THOMPSON, Circuit Judge:
Alvin Clinton, Teddy Begay, Peggy Scott, Verna Clinton,
Carlos Begay, Irena Babbitt Lane, Glenna Begay, and John
6483
Nez ("the plaintiffs") are members of the Navajo
Nation liv-
ing on the Hopi Partitioned Lands ("HPL"), a portion
of
northeast Arizona that has been determined, after decades of
litigation and legislation, to belong to the Hopi Tribe. Con-
gress attempted to resolve residual disputes among the Navajo
Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the United States, and Navajos who
live on the HPL ("HPL Navajos"), in the Navajo-Hopi
Land
Dispute Settlement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-301, 110
Stat. 3649 (1996) ("1996 Settlement Act"). Under the
1996
Settlement Act, HPL Navajos who wish to continue living on
the HPL must enter into long-term leases with the Hopi Tribe.
The plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the terms of the leases
approved by the 1996 Settlement Act, brought this action
against Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. The district
court dismissed the action. It determined that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs' action was barred by
sovereign immunity, that the Hopi Tribe was an indispensable
party to the action, and that the plaintiffs failed to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1291. We affirm
the district court's judgment on the ground that the Hopi Tribe
is an indispensable party.
..
..
CONCLUSION
[12] Because the district court did not abuse its discretion
in concluding that the Hopi Tribe is a necessary and indis-
pensable party which the plaintiffs failed to join, we affirm
the district court's judgment dismissing the action.
AFFIRMED.
=====================
Appeals court refuses Navajo-Hopi suit
Associated Press
June 18, 1999
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court refused
to reinstate
a suit by Navajo Indians who objected to a settlement
of a land
dispute between their tribe and the Hopis in northern
Arizona.
The settlement apportioned parts of a contested
area to each
tribe
and allows Navajos in the Hopi area to sign 75-year,
rent-free
leases with the Hopi tribe for a three-acre homesite
and 10
acres of
farm land. The Hopis are to receive over $25 million
and other
compensation from the federal government.
The settlement won congressional approval but still
needs approval
from Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who will decide
whether
to
uphold the leases after legal challenges are resolved
and the
Hopis
ratify the leases.
More than 300 Navajo families have agreed to the
leases, but
eight
Navajos objected and sued Babbitt. They claimed the
agreement
was discriminatory and said it failed to provide for
infrastructure
improvement and limited them to subsistence activities.
"They are prevented from doing anything in
their homes other
than
living a 19th century rural lifestyle" and are
prohibited from
operating businesses in their homes, their lawyer,
Daniel A.
Israel,
said Thursday. "They're at the whim of the Hopi
Tribe, which
doesn't want them to be there."
But U.S. District Judge Earl Carroll dismissed the
suit last
year,
saying he lacked jurisdiction, and was upheld Thursday
by the
appeals court.
The 3-0 ruling said the Hopi Tribe was a necessary
participant
in
the case because its interests in the land and the
promised
compensation were at stake. The tribe, however, cannot
be sued
in
federal court without its consent.
Although there is nowhere else for the eight plaintiffs
to sue,
their
interests are outweighed by "the Hopi Tribe's
interest in maintaining
its sovereign immunity," said the opinion by Judge
David
Thompson.
He also said the plaintiffs' claim of discrimination
did not
appear to
be valid.
"They are in the unique position of being offered
free leases
to
remain on land to which they have no right" and
cannot show
that
they are being treated worse than anyone else in the
same situation,
Thompson said.
Israel, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said the procedural
grounds
for the
dismissal eliminated "the right to litigate issues
relating
to the
reservation."
The case is Clinton vs. Babbitt, 98-15306.