Opinion ID: 704021
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Bennett Freeze.

Text: 101 Congress provided in 1974, with immaterial exceptions, that no lands in litigation in the 1934 reservation should be developed except by written consent of each tribe: 102 Any development of lands in litigation pursuant to [Sec. 640d-7] ... shall be carried out only upon the written consent of each tribe, except for the limited area around the village of Moenkopi and around Tuba City.... Development as used herein shall mean any new construction or improvement to the property and further includes public work projects, power and water lines, public agency improvements, and associated rights-of-way. 103 25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-9(f). This statute codified the freeze imposed in 1966 by Commissioner of Indian Affairs Robert Bennett. It reduced the incentive for either tribe to develop the jointly occupied lands between the time when the freeze was imposed, and the time when the court would partition jointly held lands based on fairness on equity. Otherwise, either tribe, anticipating that a judge would want to avoid allocating land occupied by members of one tribe to the other, would have an incentive to manipulate the expected partition by creating occupancy during the litigation period. 104 The district court believed that as of 1992, when he concluded his determinations required by our remand in 1980, that the residents have waited long enough to see this litigation resolved, and maintenance of the statutory freeze would be inequitable, so he ordered the freeze lifted. Masayesva, 816 F.Supp. at 1417. He then granted a limited stay pending appeal of this order, for land in the partitioned joint use area. Id. at 1441. 105 The Hopis argue that the district court lacked authority to lift the statutory freeze. We review de novo, Jeldness, 30 F.3d at 1222, and reverse. 106 The district court had no authority to lift the freeze. Congress wrote law which prohibited development of lands in litigation without written consent of both tribes. The litigation was not concluded when the district court entered judgment. The Hopis had a right to appeal which they exercised. The purpose of the statute implies that it operates during appeal, because appeal carries the possibility of remand. 107 Congress expressly gave the district court discretion to partition jointly occupied land according to fairness and equity. It did not confer comparable authority on the district court in the freeze provision. 108 The order lifting the freeze is vacated. The freeze remains in effect for the lands in litigation. Those lands include, at the least, areas where the Hopis claim religious shrines and other religious occupancy. Whether other lands are in litigation depends on whether a petition for certiorari is filed, and whether it is granted. 109