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

  • Supreme Court Releases Four Opinions; Ten Remain: The Supreme Court released four divided opinions today including a very interesting case rejecting an inmate's right to test the DNA used to...
  • Updated Term Statistics: I've updated the Term Statistics to reflect this week's opinions. Complete --- Term Index Opinion Breakdown Vote Breakdown
  • Updates: I've updated a lot of the information on the Term Case Index in preparation for today's cases. I expect the Supreme Court to hand down 1-2 o...
  • 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,...
  • Rate of 5-4 Majority Opinion Authorship: As a general matter, the Justices that tend to carry the greatest ideological authority on the Supreme Court should be the ones authoring th...