## Facts

- United Nuclear Corporation obtained two 10-year uranium mining leases from the Navajo Tribal Council through competitive bidding; the Secretary of the Interior approved the leases.
- The Secretary approved United’s exploration plans, and United spent more than $5 million on exploration, discovering valuable uranium deposits.
- United submitted a mining plan for approval, which was required before mining could begin.
- United’s mining plan satisfied all applicable regulatory requirements, but the Secretary refused to approve it unless the Navajo Tribal Council affirmatively approved the plan.
- Over approximately three years, United unsuccessfully sought tribal approval and also sought approval from the Secretary without the tribe’s consent.
- Because mining did not begin within the lease-specified period, the leases terminated by their terms.
- United sued in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the Secretary’s refusal to approve the compliant plan caused the loss of its leasehold interests and constituted a Fifth Amendment taking without just compensation.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed, concluding United had no legally protected property right to approval of its mining plan.

## Issues

1. Whether United had a cognizable property interest in its approved mineral leases and the ability to proceed to mining upon regulatory compliance.
2. Whether the Secretary’s refusal to approve a regulation-compliant mining plan unless the tribe consented, resulting in lease expiration, constituted a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that the government’s action constituted a taking of United’s property interest in the leases.
- The court directed the trial court to determine the amount of just compensation.

## Legal Principles

- Approved mineral leases can constitute protected property interests under the Fifth Amendment.
- Government action that prevents exploitation of a valid leasehold and destroys its economic value may constitute a compensable taking, even if framed as an approval or regulatory decision.
- Conditioning approval of a compliant plan on an extra-regulatory prerequisite, where the condition effectively blocks use during the lease term and leads to loss of the lease, can support takings liability.
- Upon finding a taking, the remedy is just compensation measured under established valuation methods as applied on remand.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that the Secretary’s refusal to approve United’s regulation-compliant mining plan unless the tribe consented caused the leases to expire without any opportunity to mine and thereby took United’s leasehold interests, requiring a remand to determine just compensation.


United Nuclear Corp. v. United States, 912 F.2d 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1990)