In US v. Navajo Nation, the Court affirmed their decision from six years ago to limit the royalties that the Native American tribe could collect from coal deals made several decades ago. Justice Souter filed a brief concurrence, printed here in its entirety:

I am not through regretting that my position in United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U. S. 488, 514–521 (2003) (dissenting opinion), did not carry the day. But it did not, and I agree that the precedent of that case calls for the result reached here.

In 2003, the Court held 6-3 that the Navajo had not proven a breach of trust as required by the Indian Mineral Leasing Act. Justice Ginsburg authored the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Stevens and O’Connor.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Advocate Watch: With the Term quickly approaching it's midway point, we can take a look at which advocates have made the biggest mark on the Term. Hearing L...
  • January Hearing List Released: The Supreme Court has released the Hearing List for the January sitting and you can find it here. Several high-profile advocates are back...
  • Chief Justice Roberts and Unanimous Decisions: When he was nominated to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts mentioned that one of his main objectives as chief justice would be to cre...
  • Updated Advocate Scorecard (OT00-10): The Court's hearing list for this month completes the list of attorneys who will argue before the Supreme Court during October Term 2010. I'...
  • Advocates Arguing from Private Practice (OT 2000-2011): In my last post, I provided a list of the top Supreme Court advocates of the twenty-first century who had never worked in the Office of the ...