Today, the Supreme Court granted cert in two Indian law cases:
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, No. 07-1372
Petition for Cert: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/07-1372_pet.pdf
Hawaii Supreme Court Decision: Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Housing and Community Development Corp. of Hawaii, No. 25570 (Hawaii 2008) http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2008/25570.pdf
Question Presented in Petition for Cert:
“In the Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Congress acknowledged and apologized for the United States’ role in that overthrow. The question here is whether this symbolic resolution strips Hawaii of its sovereign authority to sell, exchange, or transfer 1.2 million acres of state land–29 percent of the total land area of the State and almost all the land owned by the State–unless and until it reaches a political settlement with native Hawaiians about the status of that land.”
U.S. v. Navajo Nation, No. 07-1410
Petition for Cert: http://www.narf.org/sct/usvnavajonation/petition_for_cert.pdf
Appellate Court Decision: Navajo Nation v. US, No. 06-5059 (Fed. Ct. 2007), http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/06-5059.pdf
Prior Supreme Court Decision: US v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003)
Questions Presented in Petition for Cert:
“The Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (IMLA), 25 U.S.C. 396a et- seq., and its implementing regulations authorize Indian Tribes, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, to lease tribal lands for mining purposes. In a previous decision in this case, United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) (Navajo), this Court held that the Secretary’s actions in connection with Indian mineral lease amendments containing increased royalty rates negotiated by the Navajo Nation did not breach a fiduciary duty found in IMLA or other relevant statutes or regulations. The court of appeals held on remand that the Secretary’s conduct breached duties linked to sources of law that had been briefed to this Court but not expressly discussed in Navajo. The questions presented are:
1. Whether the court of appeals’ holding that the United States breached fiduciary duties in connection with the Navajo coal lease amendments is foreclosed by Navajo.
2. If Navajo did not foreclose the question, whether the court of appeals properly held that the United States is liable as a mater of law to the Navajo Nation for up to $600 million for the Secretary’s actions in connection with his approval of amendments to an Indian mineral
lease based on several statutes that do not address royalty rates in tribal leases and common-law principles not embodied in a governing statute or regulation.”