## Facts

- Peabody Western Coal Co. operated coal mines at the Kayenta/Black Mesa complex in Arizona under leases with the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe, which jointly owned the subsurface mineral estate.
- The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) issued a mining permit containing 18 special conditions governing operations.
- Peabody challenged most special conditions in Interior Department administrative proceedings; the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and Maxine Kescoli (a Navajo Nation member) intervened.
- The dispute centered on “special condition one,” addressing protection of sacred burial sites.
- Peabody, OSM, the Navajo Nation, and the Hopi Tribe entered a settlement modifying special condition one; Kescoli opposed the modification as inadequate to protect burial sites and related religious interests.
- An Administrative Law Judge and the Interior Board of Land Appeals approved the settlement.
- Kescoli sued federal officials and agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act in the District of Arizona, seeking declaratory relief invalidating the modified condition; she did not sue the Navajo Nation or the Hopi Tribe.
- The district court dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, concluding the tribes were necessary and indispensable but could not be joined due to tribal sovereign immunity; Kescoli appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe were required parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) in a suit challenging an agency-approved settlement that modified a permit condition affecting their lease and property interests.
2. If joinder was not feasible due to tribal sovereign immunity, whether Rule 19(b) required dismissal because the tribes were indispensable parties.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
- The court held the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe were necessary parties under Rule 19(a) because the suit challenged a settlement to which they were signatories and implicated their direct property and contractual interests.
- The court held joinder was not feasible because the tribes had sovereign immunity absent waiver or congressional abrogation.
- Applying Rule 19(b), the court concluded the tribes were indispensable because the requested relief would prejudice their interests, could not be shaped to avoid that prejudice, and would produce an inadequate judgment in their absence; dismissal was required even if it left the plaintiff without an alternative forum.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 19(a), a party must be joined if feasible when its absence may impair its ability to protect a legally cognizable interest or expose existing parties to inconsistent obligations.
- Tribal sovereign immunity generally bars suits against tribes (including suits for declaratory or injunctive relief) absent an express waiver or clear congressional abrogation, making joinder infeasible.
- Under Rule 19(b), when a required party cannot be joined, courts weigh prejudice, the ability to lessen prejudice through tailored relief, adequacy of a judgment rendered without the absent party, and the availability of an alternative remedy.
- A plaintiff cannot avoid Rule 19 dismissal by suing only federal agencies or private parties when the relief sought would effectively invalidate or materially alter an agreement to which immune tribal sovereigns are parties.
- The absence of an alternative forum does not, by itself, override the protection afforded to indispensable parties by sovereign immunity.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that because Kescoli’s APA challenge sought relief that would affect a settlement and mining arrangements involving the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe, those tribes were required and indispensable parties; their sovereign immunity made joinder impossible, so the action had to be dismissed under Rule 19(b).


Kescoli v. Babbitt, 101 F.3d 1304 (9th Cir. 1996)