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

  • Nearly Final Term Statistics and Advocate Scorecard: My goal was to publish the final term statistics today, but because the Court will hear rearguments in Citzens United and likely issue an op...
  • Updated Term Statistics: I've updated the Term Statistics to reflect this week's opinions. Complete --- Term Index Opinion Breakdown Vote Breakdown
  • 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,...
  • Likelihood of a Petition Being Granted: There are a lot of numbers thrown out about the likelihood of a cert. petition being granted. The number I've always heard is 1%, but I some...
  • A Big Little Case: Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an interesting case about water law in Montana, PPL Montana v. Montana. The case wi...