P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 2775

UNAL AC HT I GO B AND OF T HE NANT I CO KE L E NNI L E N A P E N A T IO N ; H O N . J A M E S B R E N T T H O M A S , S R ., T r i bal C hai r m an and W arC hi ef U nal acht i go B and of N a n tic o k e -L e n n i L e n a p e N a tio n a /k /a K S C H U P P E H E L L E N ,

v. JO N S . C O R Z IN E , G o v e rn o r o f th e S tate o f

N e w Je rse yin h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i ty ; S T AT E OF NE W J E RS E Y,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees, P O W H A T A N IN D IA N S O F D E L A W A R E V A L L E Y d /b /a Po wha t a n Re n a p e Nat i o n ; STOCK BRI DG E- M UN SEE

CO M M UN I TY (I n te rv e n o rs in D .C .)
S T OC K BR I DGE

- M UNS E E CO M M UNI T Y,

A ppel l antT he H onor abl e Paul R

. M i chel , C h ief Judge of the * U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe F eder al C i r cui t , s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 2

O n A ppeal fr om a Fi nal O r derof the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o rth e D i s tr i c to f

N e w J e r s e y D i s tr i ctC our tN o. 05- cv- 05710 D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e J os eph H

. R odr i guez

A r gued M ar ch 8, 2010
B e f o re : A M B R O , S M IT H , a n d M IC H E L , C i r cui tJudges * ( Fi l ed: M ay25, 2010)
D on B

. M i l l er , E s q. ( ar gued) D on B. M i l l e r , PC 1305 C edarA venue B oul der , C O 80304
D onal d B

. V ei x, J r . , E s q. Anth i e l M a s l o w & M a c M i l l , LLP 131 W es tSt at e Str eet D oy l es t ow n, PA 18901
H ow ar d B i chl er S to c k b rid g e -M u n se e C o m m u n ity3 N 8476 M oh H e C on N uck R d. B ow l er , W I 54416
M i chae l C or en, E s q. Lev y , A ng s tr e i c h, Fi nn e y , Bal da nt e , Rube ns t e i n & Cor e n, PC T en M el r os e A venue W oodcr es tPavi l i on Sui t e 450 C herr yH i l l , N J 08003 C ouns el f orAppel lant
A nne M i l gr am L e w is A . S c h e in d lin E l l en M

. H al e ( ar gued) A t t orneyG ener al of N ew J er s ey R

. J

. H ughes J us t i ce Com pl ex P. O

. B ox 112, 25 M arketSt r eet T r ent on, N J 08625 C ouns el f orAppel l ee H arr i s N

. Fel dm an, E s q. Sc h n a d e r , Harr i s o n , Se g a l & Le wi s LLP W o o d land F all s C o rpo rate P ark 22 0 L ake D ri ve E ast Sui t e 200 C herr yH i l l , N J 08002 C ouns el

f orI nt er venor -Appel l ee Pow hatan I ndi ans of D E V al l ey M i chae l J

. Fas ano ( ar gued) E d w ard C

. E astm an , Jr.4 L o m u rr o , D a v is o n , E a s tm a n a n d M u n o z , P .A ., M onm outh E xecut i ve C ent er 100 W i l l ow B r ook R oad, B ui l di ng 1 Fr eehol d, N J 07728 C o u n se l fo r A m icu s, N

e w J e rs e y L a n d T itl e A s s oci at i on

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

M I C H E L , C i r cui tJ udge
Pl aint i ff U nal acht i go B and of N ant i coke- L enni L enape N a tio n (“ U n a lac h tig o ” ) f iled a c o m p lain t in D istric t C o u rt, bas ed on the N oni nt er cour s e A ct, 2 5 U

. S. C

. § 187, s eeki ng pos s es s i on of l and i n N ew J er s eythatpr evi ous l ycons t i tut ed the B r ot her t on I ndi an re s er vat i o n . I n t e r v e n o r - a ppel l ant S to c k b rid g e -M u n se e C o m m u n ity(“ S to c k b r id g e ” ) m o v e d to di s m i s s U nal acht i go’ s compl ai ntunderR ul e 19 o f t he Feder al R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , cla im in g a n o n -f riv o lo u s in ter e st in the pr operty . I n a s i ngl e or der , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed U nalacht i go ’s com plai nt s ua spo nte for l ack o f st and i ng and al so deni ed S tock b r i dge’ s R ul e 19 mot i on t o di s m i s s , fi ndi ng that S to c k b rid g e d id n o t h a v e a n o n -f riv o lo u s inte re st i n th e p ro p e rty beca us e i thad fa i l ed t o demonstr at e that i t w as a s ucce s s or - i nin ter e st to th e B ro th e rto n In d ian s. S to c k b r id g e a p p e a ls to th is5 court , ar gui ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our topi ni on s houl d be vac at ed b ec au se th at co u rtlack ed juri sd ict ion to ru le on S tock b ri d g e’s m o tio n o n c e it d e ter m in e d th a t U n a lac h tig o ’s c o m p lain t sh o u ld be d i s mi s s e d f

o rl a c k o f

s t a n d i n g . W e a g r e e wi th St o c k b r i dge and w i l l vaca t e- i n- partthe port i on of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der a n d o p in io n d e n y in g S to c k b ri d g e ’s R u le 1 9 m o tio n . I.
D ur i ng the Fr ench a nd Ind i an W ar , the C ol oni es fac ed enem ies i n the form of F rance and i t s D el aw are I nd i an all i es, s o me o f who m ha d mi g r a t e d wes tf r o m N e w J e r s e yd e c a des ear l i er . W i thi n the C ol ony o f N ew J er s ey , s m al l bands of D el aw are I nd i ans rem ai ned

. F eari ng an all i ance b et w een those r emai ni ng D el aw ar e I ndi ans and thos e t o the w es t , N ew J er s ey ent er ed i nt o a tr eatyw i th thos e r em aini ng D el aw ar es i n 1758. In re turn fo r giv ing u p their c la im s to lan d s, the D elaw are I ndi ans w ho w i s hed t o r emai n i n N ew J er s eyw er e s ett l ed on a r es ervat i on cal l ed B r othert on, i n an ar ea that t oday i s loc at ed
w i thi n Sham ong T ow ns hi p. T hes e I ndi ans form ed a tr i bal go vernm ent know n as t he B rothert on Indi ans. Aft e r t h e Fr ench and I ndi an W arended, N ew J er s eygr ew l es s conce rned a b o u tth e wel f

a r e o f th e Br o th e r t o n I n d i a n s . Gov e rnm ent f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e w a s w i th d r a w n , a n d i n 1 8 0 1 th e p o v e r tystric ken tri be asked the Stat e of N ew Jer sey t o s el l its r e s e r v a t i o n a n d h e l p i tmov e t o c e n tr a l New Y o r k , whe r e the M o h ican I ndi ans on the N ew St ockbr i dge r es ervat i on had inv it ed them to liv e . T h e St at e l egi s l atur e obl i ged, and the6 m a jo rity o f th e B ro th e rto n m o v e d to N e w Y o rk , w h e re S ta te agent s ens ur ed thatthe form al m er geragr eement b et w een the S to c k b rid g e a n d B ro th e rto n trib e s g ra n ted f u ll m e m b e rsh ip ri g h ts to th e B ro th e rt o n D e la w a re . T h e S t at e then s ol d the r es e r v a t i o n a n d h e l d th e p r o c e e d s , whi c h th e c o mbi n e d tr i be l at erus ed t o pur chas e l and i n W i s cons i n aft eri tw as for ced out of N ew Y ork i n the 182 0s and 30 s.
I n 1823, the B r othert ons and St ockbr i dge agai n exec ut ed a form al tr i bal agr eement t o ens ur e they w oul d r ec eive equal ri g h t in th e n e w ly p u r c h a s e d W is c o n s in la n d s . I n 1832, the Stockbr i dge B r othert ons appea r ed bef or e the N ew J er s ey leg is latu re se e k in g c o m p e n sa tio n f o r o f f -re se rv a tio n tre a ty hunt i ng and fi s hi ng r i ght s noti ncl uded i n the 1802 ces s i on. T he l egi s l atur e appr opr i at ed $2, 000 and the I ndi ans s i gned a tr ans fer ag ree m en t, p u rpo rt ed lyreli n q u ishing the last o f B roth erton ’s tr i b a l r i g h t s i n N e w J e r s e y.
A ccor di ng t o St ockbr i dge, N ew J er s ey ’ s pur chas e of the B r othert on r es ervat i on di d notcompl yw i th fede r al l aw . Si nce 1789, fede r al l aw has r equi r ed C ongr es s t o appr ove the s al e of anyI ndi an l ands

. B eca us e the St at e fai l ed t o getC ongr es s i onal a p p ro v a l, th e 1 8 0 1 sa le v io lat e d f e d e ra l law a n d f

a iled to e x tin g u is h In d ia n p ro p e rt yri g h ts in th e tr a c t.
I n th e 1 9 9 0 s , a tr i b e o f De l a w a r e I n d i a n s i n Ok l a h o ma s oughtt o pur s ue thi s cl ai m . I tas ked the l egal o ff ice forthe B ur eau of

I ndi an A ffa i r s ( “B I A ”) , as i t s trus t ee, t o devel op and7 p ro s e c u te th e c la im o n its b e h a lf

. T he fe der al l aw y er s , w i th the hel p of a BIA h ist o r i an, i nves t i gat ed the hi s t oryof the B ro th e rto n re se rv a tio n a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t, w h ile th e re p ro b a b ly w as a mer i t o ri ous cl ai m t o be pur s ued, thi s tr i be of D el aw ar es fr om O kl ahoma w as not the one t o do i t beca us e i t w as notthe s ucce s s or - i n- i nt er es t t o the B r othert on D el aw ar e T r i be. I ns t ead, itap p ea red that the S tock b ri d g e-M u n see T ri b e (the interve n o rappel l ant“St ockbr i dge”) i n W i s cons i n w as the l i kel ys ucce s s or and, i n 2000, the I nt er i orD epart m ent ’ s t op I ndi an- aff ai r s l aw y er advi s ed St ockbr i dge of i t s pot ent i al cl ai m . St o ck b ri d ge then r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l a n d a n e x p e r t h i s t o r i a n t o i n v e s t i g a t e th e c l a i m.
B efor e St ockbr i dge act ed on i t s cl ai m , the U nal acht i go, an I ndi an gro u p i n s outhern N ew J er s eynotr ecogni zed bythe U ni t ed St at es orthe St at e of N ew J er s ey , fi l ed thi s 2005 act i on cl ai m i ng t o be the r i ght ful ow ner s of the B r othert on r es ervat i on and s eeki ng it s pos s es s i on. A s s ert i ng i t s cl ai m thr ough the N oni nt er cour s e A ct( “A ct ”) , the U nal acht i go al l eged thatN ew Jer sey ’s sal e of the res ervat i on i n 180 2 vi olat ed the A ctbecau se the s al e o f Ind ia n l ands i s voi d i f i ti s w i thoutC ongr es s i onal c o n se n t.
S to c k b rid g e d e ter m in e d th a t th is su it l ik e lyw o u ld re su lt i n j udi ci al i nt erp reta t i on of the s ame t r eat i es and s t atut es that s houl d nece s s ar i l yform the bas i s of i t s ow n cl ai m i f i tl at er d e c id e d to p u rsu e it. B u t S to c k b r id g e d id n o t w a n t to lit ig a te thes e mat t er s i n the cont ext of t he U nal acht i go s ui t

. C oncerned th a t its in ter e sts c o u ld b e im p a ire d if th e a c tio n p ro c e e d e d in its8 abs ence , St ockbr i dge moved t o i nt ervene a s a def endantforthe so le pu rpo se o f se ek ing d ism issal of the U n alac h ti g o ’s c o m p lain t u n d e r R u le 1 9 f o r f a ilu re to jo in it as a n in d isp e n sa b le p a rtyc laim in g so v e re ig n im m u n ity

. S to c k b rid g e c laim e d th a t it w as the succ essor -i n-i nter estt o the B roth e rt on Indi ans. H ow ever , i td id n o t cl ai m an i nt er es ti n the l and of the B ro th e rto n re se rv a tio n o r oth e rw ise m o v e to a d d re ss its in ter e sts on the m eri t s.
B efor e the D i s tr i ctC ou rt rende r ed a de ci s i on on St ockbr i dge’ s R ul e 19 mot i on, U nal acht igo am ended the Com pl a i ntt o n a me the St a t e of N e w J e r s e ya nd G ov e rno r J on S. C o rzine (“S tat e d ef

en d an ts”) an d d ism issed as to the o ther, B ur l i ngt on C ount ydefendant s . T he St at e def endant s fi l ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s bas ed on E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni tyas w el l as other defe ns es . T he St at e defe ndant s l at er w it h dr ew their m o ti o n to d ism iss w ith o u t p rejud ice fo r th e D istri ct C o u rt to re s o lv e S to c k b ri d g e ’s m o tio n . O n M ay 2 0 , 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed St ockbr i dge’ s m ot i on under R ul e 1 9 an d d i s m i s s ed U n a lac h tig o ’s c a se f

o r la c k o f

sta n d in g s u a sp o n te. B o th U n alac h ti g o an d S tock b ri d g e a p p ea led th e co u rt ’s ord er. U nal acht i go w as unabl e t o obt ai n couns el and i t s appea l w as ther efor e di s m i s s ed.

I n i t s o p e n i n g b r i e f

, St o c k b r i d g e d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of U n alacht i go’ s compl ai nt , but9 instead req u ested that th is c o u rtrev erse the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ruli n g that, b ec au se S tock b ri d g e is n o t B roth erton ’s su cc esso r, it w as no t an ind ispe n sab le p arty p u rsua n t to R u le 1 9 (a). St ockbr i dge ar gued thati t w as the s ucce s s or - i n- i nt er es tt o the B r othert on. I n r es pons e, the S t at e of N ew J er s eyar gued thatthe deci s i on s hou ld b e affi r m ed bec aus e ther e w as no cas e or co n tr o v ersy as a r esu lt o f th e dism issal o f U n alac h ti g o ’s a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. O n re p ly , S to c k b rid g e a b a n d o n s its o rig in a l ar g u m e n t th a t th e D ist r ic t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g its R ul e 19 mot i on. St ockbr i dge i ns t ead a r gues th at t he D i s tr i ct C o u rto p inion sh o u ld b e v ac ated b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt la c k e d ju risd ictio n to ru le o n th e R u le 1 9 m o tio n o n c e it d et erm i ned thatU nal acht i go’ s compl ai nts houl d be di s m i s s ed f o r l a c k o f

s ta n d in g . II.
A r t i cl e I I I ext ends the J udi ci al Pow erof the U ni t ed S t at es onl yt o “ca s es ” and “contr over s i es . ” The Supre m e C our thas hel d that“fe der al court s ar e w i thout pow ert o deci de ques t i ons th a t c a n n o t a f

f e c t th e ri g h ts o f litig a n ts in th e c a s e b e f o re th e m .” N or th C ar ol i na v. R i ce, 404 U

. S. 244, 2 4 6 ( 1971)

. A s the S u p rem e C o u rtem p h asize d , “W ith o u t j u ri sd ict ion the c o u rt c a n n o t p r o c e e d a t all in a n yc a u se . Ju risd ictio n is p o w e r to decl ar e the l aw , an d w h en i tcea s es t o exi s t , the onl yfunct i on r emai ni ng t o the courti s that o f announci ng the fa ctand d ism iss in g th e c a u se .” S tee l C o . v . C iti z e n s fo r a B e tter E n v ’t, 5 2 3 U

. S

. 8 3 , 9 4 (19 9 8 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted).10 I n N ew J er s ey v. H el dor I ndus

. , I nc. , 989 F. 2d 702, 705 ( 3d C i r . 1993) , thi s courtvaca t ed an opi ni on ent er ed bya l ow er c o u rt a f ter it lo st j u risd ictio n . T h e S tate o f N e w Je rse yin iti a lly obj ect ed t o H el dor ’ s bankrupt cys ett l ementagr eement , butl at er a d v ise d th e b a n k ru p tcy j u d g e th a t itw o u ld w ith d ra w its o b jec tio n . Id . at 7 0 4 . D e sp ite b e in g a w a re o f th e w ith d r a w a l, t he b a n k ru p t c yj u d g e s t i l l i s s u e d a me mor a n d u m op i n i on concl udi ng that the St at e’ s obj ect i on w as overrul ed. See i d. at 704- 05. A ft ert he D i s tr i ctC our taff i r m ed the bankrupt cy j udge’ s opi ni on, H el dor appea l ed t o thi s court , ar gui ng thatthe bankrupt cyj udge l acke d the j ur i s di ct i on t o i s s ue i t s opi ni on. See i d. at705. T hi s courtagr eed, r eas oni ng, “[s ] i nce fr om the ti m e of the Fr amer s t o the pr es entfede r al court s have be en l i m i t ed in theirpo w er t o d eci de o nly ‘cas es’ or ‘ con trovers i es’ and notr enderadvi s ory o p inions , i ti s appar entthatthe bankrupt cyj udge coul d notexer ci s e ‘ the j udi ci al Pow erof the U ni t ed St at es ’ overa non-ex ist entdi s put e[. ] ” I d. at709. T he c o n tro v e rsy w a s m o o t a f ter th e S tate ’s w ith d ra w a l o f its obj ect i on and, thus , the bankrupt cyj udge’ s m emora ndum w as an i m pr oper“advi s ory ” opi ni on. See i d. at707.

T h e N in th C irc u it a n a ly z e d th e iss u e sim ilarlyin E n v iro n m e n tal P r o tec tio n In f o rm a tio n C e n ter , In c . v . P a c if ic L u m b er C o. , 257 F. 3d 1071 ( 9th C i r . 2001)

. I n thatcas e, the appel l antas ked the N i nth C i r cui t t o vaca t e an or der , fi l ed af t er the ca s e had become m oot , out l i ni ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r eas ons forgr ant i ng a pre l i m i nary i nj unct i on. I d. at1073. T he appe l l ee agr eed thatt he D i s tr i ctC our tl os tj ur i s di ct i on, butar gued that11 th e a p p e l l a n t l a c k e d s t a n d i n g t o a p p e a l b e c a u s e th e fi nal ju d g m e n t w a s in th e a p p e llan t’s f a v o r. I d

. T h e N in th C irc u it acknow l edged thatthe appe al “d[i d] notqual i fyforprud ent i al sta n d in g in th e m o st u se d se tti n g s (r e f o rm a ti o n o f

ju d g m e n t, futur e ec onom i c l os s orcol la t er al es t oppel ) [. ] ” I d. at1076. N everthel es s , the court , l i ke the m aj or i ty i n H el dor , hel d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o “fl outthe di ct at es of A r t i cl e I I I and re n d e r a n o p in io n in sp ite o f k n o w in g th e c a u se w a s m o o t d id r ender[the appe l l ant ] an ‘ aggr i eved p arty . ’ ” I d. at1077. T he courtexpl ai ned, “[w ] hi l e i ti s true thatal l d ic t a ‘ have no pr ecl us i ve ef

fec t , ’ di ct a ent er ed aft er a court has l os tj ur i s di ct i on overa partyi nfli ct s a w r ong on thatpartyof a di ffe r entor der than thatw hi ch exi s t s i n the usu al c ase of extr aneous j udi ci al p ro n o u n c e m e n t.” Id . (in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ). T h e N in th C i r cui tther efor e vac at ed the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s o rderand re m a n d e d . Id

. In th is case , the D is tr ictC o u rtd ism issed U n alac h ti g o ’s amended compl ai nt for l ack of s t andi ng. B eca us e i nt ervent i on i s anci l l ary t o a mai n caus e, once the D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatU nal acht i go’ s caus e of ac t i on s houl d be di s m i s s ed forl ack of s t andi ng, ther e no l onger w as a l i ve cas e orcontr over s y . See Ful l erv. V ol k , 351 F. 2d 323, 328 ( 3d C i r . 1965) ( hol di ng that i nt ervent i on cont empl at es an exi s t i ng s ui t and i s anci l l ary t o the m ai n caus e of a ct i on) ; s ee a l s o L i t t l ej ohn v. B I C C orp. , 851 F. 2d 673, 677 n. 7 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( “[I ] nt erve n ti on i s anci l l aryand su b o rd in a te to a m a in c a u se a n d w h e n e v e r a n a c tio n is t erm i nat ed, forw hat everr eas on, ther e no l ongerr emai ns an12 act i o n i n whi c h th e r e c a n b e a n i n t e r v e n t i o n . ” ) ( i n t er nal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . T h u s, a s in H e ld o r a n d P a c if ic L u m b er, th e D istri ct C o u rt issue d an o p inion o n S tock b ri d g e’s R u l e 1 9 m o t i o n w h e n i t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n . T h i s “ a d v i s o ry” o p inion ign o res the d ict ates o f A rt icl e III an d ren d ers S to c k b rid g e a n “ a g g rie v e d p a rty ” su c h th a t itis e n tit led to a p p e lla te re lie f

. III

. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the port i on of the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er a n d o p inion d en y ing S tock b ri d g e’s R ul e 19 mot i on.