## Facts

- Quantum Exploration, Inc., a private mineral developer, negotiated a proposed oil-and-gas joint venture with the Blackfeet Indian Tribe covering tribal and allotted lands within the Blackfeet Reservation.
- The Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (IMDA) authorizes tribes, with approval by the Secretary of the Interior, to enter mineral-development agreements, including joint ventures, to advance tribal self-determination and improve tribal financial returns.
- On July 12, 1983, the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council approved a proposed joint venture with Quantum, expressly subject to Secretarial approval.
- The Council later approved an amended version in March 1984 and submitted it to the Secretary for approval under IMDA.
- Before the Secretary approved or disapproved the submission, the Council rescinded the agreement by resolution on August 8, 1984, concluding it was not in the Tribe’s best interests after consultation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
- Quantum sued the Secretary and the Department of the Interior, alleging (i) the Secretary unlawfully failed to approve or disapprove the agreement and (ii) BIA’s consultation with the Tribe violated IMDA and interfered with Quantum’s contractual relations.
- Quantum sought relief that would effectively bind the Tribe to the rescinded agreement and compel Secretarial action, including mandamus and NEPA-related regulatory deadlines.
- The district court dismissed the complaint; Quantum appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a non-tribal developer has a judicially enforceable right under IMDA to compel the Secretary to approve or disapprove a mineral-development agreement after the tribe rescinded it before Secretarial approval.
2. Whether IMDA authorizes a developer to challenge BIA’s consultation with a tribe or to obtain relief effectively binding the tribe to an unapproved, rescinded agreement.
3. Whether mandamus lies to compel Secretarial action or promulgation of NEPA-related deadlines in these circumstances.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the action, relying on grounds supported by the record even if different from the district court’s reasoning.
- The court held Quantum could not obtain the relief sought because, once the Tribe rescinded the agreement before Secretarial approval, there was no approved IMDA agreement on which to compel agency action.
- The court rejected Quantum’s attempt to use IMDA to contest BIA’s advisory role with the Tribe or to revive and enforce the rescinded agreement through federal litigation.
- The court denied mandamus-type relief because IMDA did not impose a clear, nondiscretionary duty owed to Quantum to act on a withdrawn submission or to promulgate the requested NEPA-related regulations.

## Legal Principles

- IMDA’s statutory purpose is primarily to protect tribal interests and expand tribal choice in mineral development; it does not generally create enforceable federal rights for private developers to compel approval of a deal a tribe has withdrawn.
- Secretarial approval is a prerequisite to an IMDA agreement’s federal effectiveness; a tribe’s rescission before approval leaves no operative agreement requiring Secretarial approval/disapproval.
- A private developer lacks a statutory cause of action under IMDA to challenge BIA’s consultation with a tribe concerning the merits or legal sufficiency of a proposed agreement.
- Mandamus requires a clear right to relief and a plainly defined, nondiscretionary duty; those requirements are not met where the underlying agreement was rescinded and the requested agency actions are not ministerial duties owed to the developer.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal because IMDA did not give a private developer a judicially enforceable right to force Secretarial action or challenge BIA advice after the Tribe rescinded an unapproved mineral-development agreement, and mandamus was unavailable absent a clear, nondiscretionary duty owed to the developer.


Quantum Expl. Inc. v. Clark, 780 F.2d 1457 (9th Cir. 1986)