Opinion ID: 210370
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Purposes of Asserted Network

Text: Interpreting the asserted network to mandate a right of recovery in damages against the government in this case is consistent with the purposes of the statutes and regulations. First, the government entered into the Treaty of 1849 to secure the permanent prosperity and happiness of said Indians. 9 Stat. 974 at art. I, XI. Second, the Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act of 1950 authorized and directed the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a program of basic improvements for the conservation and development of the resources of the Navajo and Hopi Indians to further the purposes of existing treaties with the Navajo Indians, to provide facilities, employment, and services essential in combating hunger, disease, poverty, and demoralization among the members of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes, to make available the resources of their reservations for use in promoting a self-supporting economy and self-reliant communities, and to lay a stable foundation on which these Indians can engage in diversified economic activities and ultimately attain standards of living comparable with those enjoyed by other citizens. 25 U.S.C. § 631. Third, the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1983 recognize that the actual practices of the Department of Interior, at the time of the lease amendments in this case, used methods to yield a reasonable and long-term maximum rate of return for both Federal and Indian leases and intended to ensure that the trust responsibilities of the United States with respect to the administration of Indian coal leases are discharged in accordance with the requirements of the governing mineral leasing laws, treaties, and lease terms. 52 Fed.Reg. 1840 (Jan. 15, 1987) (stating purpose and background of proposed rulemaking notice); 30 C.F.R. § 206.250(d) (1989). Therefore, the purposes of the asserted network of statutes and regulations support finding a fiduciary relationship between the government and the Nation that is money-mandating under the Indian Tucker Act. The government appears to rely on the statement in Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 508, 123 S.Ct. 1079, that the IMLA of 1938 aims to enhance tribal self-determination by giving Tribes, not the Government, the lead role in negotiating mining leases with third parties. While we cannot ignore the tension between IMLA's two objectives, Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 517, 123 S.Ct. 1079 (Souter, J., dissenting), this court would err through overbroad application of the Navajo III holding. The Court in Navajo III interpreted the government's duties based only on the IMLA of 1938 and its regulations, IMDA of 1982, and 25 U.S.C. § 399. None of these three statutes are part of the asserted network of statutes and regulations discussed in supra, Part III.D, that forms the basis of the Nation's money-mandating claim in this appeal.