And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: BIGMTLIST <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:03:30 -0800 Subject: Appeals court refuses Navajo-Hopi suit >From BIGMTLIST The following is from Arizona Central at http://www.azcentral.com/news/0618navajo.shtml. It is repeated here for those without web access. Others should follow the link. The full text of the decision can be found at http://www.vcilp.org/Fed-Ct/Circuit/9th/opinions/9815306.htm and is too long to post here, but here is an exerpt: ===================== FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALVIN CLINTON; TEDDY BEGAY; PEGGY SCOTT; VERNA CLINTON; CARLOS BEGAY; IRENA BABBITT LANE; GLENNA BEGAY; JOHN B. No. 98-15306 NEZ, D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellants, CV 97-02167-EHC v. OPINION BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 7, 1998--San Francisco, California Filed June 17, 1999 Before: Myron H. Bright,1 Betty B. Fletcher, and David R. Thompson, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Thompson _________________________________________________________________ 1 The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation. 6479 OPINION THOMPSON, Circuit Judge: Alvin Clinton, Teddy Begay, Peggy Scott, Verna Clinton, Carlos Begay, Irena Babbitt Lane, Glenna Begay, and John 6483 Nez ("the plaintiffs") are members of the Navajo Nation liv- ing on the Hopi Partitioned Lands ("HPL"), a portion of northeast Arizona that has been determined, after decades of litigation and legislation, to belong to the Hopi Tribe. Con- gress attempted to resolve residual disputes among the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the United States, and Navajos who live on the HPL ("HPL Navajos"), in the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-301, 110 Stat. 3649 (1996) ("1996 Settlement Act"). Under the 1996 Settlement Act, HPL Navajos who wish to continue living on the HPL must enter into long-term leases with the Hopi Tribe. The plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the terms of the leases approved by the 1996 Settlement Act, brought this action against Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. The district court dismissed the action. It determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs' action was barred by sovereign immunity, that the Hopi Tribe was an indispensable party to the action, and that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1291. We affirm the district court's judgment on the ground that the Hopi Tribe is an indispensable party. .. .. CONCLUSION [12] Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Hopi Tribe is a necessary and indis- pensable party which the plaintiffs failed to join, we affirm the district court's judgment dismissing the action. AFFIRMED. ===================== Appeals court refuses Navajo-Hopi suit Associated Press June 18, 1999 SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court refused to reinstate a suit by Navajo Indians who objected to a settlement of a land dispute between their tribe and the Hopis in northern Arizona. The settlement apportioned parts of a contested area to each tribe and allows Navajos in the Hopi area to sign 75-year, rent-free leases with the Hopi tribe for a three-acre homesite and 10 acres of farm land. The Hopis are to receive over $25 million and other compensation from the federal government. The settlement won congressional approval but still needs approval from Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who will decide whether to uphold the leases after legal challenges are resolved and the Hopis ratify the leases. More than 300 Navajo families have agreed to the leases, but eight Navajos objected and sued Babbitt. They claimed the agreement was discriminatory and said it failed to provide for infrastructure improvement and limited them to subsistence activities. "They are prevented from doing anything in their homes other than living a 19th century rural lifestyle" and are prohibited from operating businesses in their homes, their lawyer, Daniel A. Israel, said Thursday. "They're at the whim of the Hopi Tribe, which doesn't want them to be there." But U.S. District Judge Earl Carroll dismissed the suit last year, saying he lacked jurisdiction, and was upheld Thursday by the appeals court. The 3-0 ruling said the Hopi Tribe was a necessary participant in the case because its interests in the land and the promised compensation were at stake. The tribe, however, cannot be sued in federal court without its consent. Although there is nowhere else for the eight plaintiffs to sue, their interests are outweighed by "the Hopi Tribe's interest in maintaining its sovereign immunity," said the opinion by Judge David Thompson. He also said the plaintiffs' claim of discrimination did not appear to be valid. "They are in the unique position of being offered free leases to remain on land to which they have no right" and cannot show that they are being treated worse than anyone else in the same situation, Thompson said. Israel, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said the procedural grounds for the dismissal eliminated "the right to litigate issues relating to the reservation." The case is Clinton vs. Babbitt, 98-15306. ******************************************** Reprinted under the fair use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
