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

  • More Sophisticated Reconferencing Statistics: A commentator on my last conferencing post picked up on an important part of the distribution question that I had intentionally omitted....
  • An Interview with Michael Dreeben: Michael Dreeben, a Deputy Solicitor General, spent the last semester on leave to teach at Duke University Law School. During his time there,...
  • 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...
  • Updated Term Charts: Starting this week, I'll be posting my updated charts on SCOTUSblog. You can find the first SB version of my charts here. More spec...
  • Advocate Scorecard for OT00-Present: This weekend, I went through all the oral argument transcripts from OT00 through OTO8 and I counted how many times each of the major advocat...