United States v. Navajo Nation (2003)
| United States v. Navajo Nation | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 2, 2002 Decided March 4, 2003 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Navajo Nation |
| Docket no. | 01-1375 |
| Holding | |
| The Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (IMLA) does not require the Secretary to manage the tribe's resources for the tribe's benefit. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer |
| Dissent | Souter, joined by Stevens, O'Connor |
United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Navajo Nation initiated proceedings alleging that the Secretary of the Interior had breached their fiduciary duty to the Tribe by not acting in the Tribe's best interests.[1]
Conclusion
[edit]Citing Mitchell II the court found that "The IMLA and its implementing regulations impose no obligations resembling the detailed fiduciary responsibilities that Mitchell II found adequate to support a claim for money damages", reversing the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals and remanding the case.[2]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |