Court Opinion

ID: 9450378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:44:00.363158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:16.509654
License: Public Domain

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The Secretary here makes serious charges of imposition and overreaching against the appellee concerning his dealings with the Indians. Based on these charges, and acting on the request of the Tribal Chairman and the Advisory Committee of the Navajo Tribal Council, the Secretary has withdrawn his approval of appellee’s contract with the Indians; and, unless the charges are disproved, he proposes to terminate appellee’s contract as General Counsel for the Indians. The temporary injunction1 issued by the District Court on application of appellee would permit him to continue dealing with the Indians under the terms of the contract in spite of the Secretary’s allegations of fraud.
It appears to me that a court of equity should not put itself in a position of preserving a relationship with Indians charged by the Secretary of the Interior to be fraudulently exploited, at least until a hearing is conducted on the validity of the charges. The equitable doctrine of clean hands goes to the heart of the case. Until that issue is resolved, a court of equity should not grant equitable relief. Brantley v. Skeens, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 246, 251-252, 266 F.2d 447, 452-453 (1959). See 2 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence § 397 (5th Ed. 1941).
I would vacate the injunction and remand this case to the District Court for a hearing on the Secretary’s charges.

. Although only a temporary injunction was issued, the District Court’s opinion decides the case on the merits.