## Facts

- The Navajo Nation’s reservation contains significant coal deposits.
- In 1964, the Navajo Nation and Peabody Coal’s predecessor entered into a coal lease (Lease 8580) approved by the Secretary of the Interior under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (IMLA).
- Lease 8580 set a royalty of $0.375 per ton, subject to “reasonable adjustment” by the Secretary after 20 years and every 10 years thereafter.
- By the early 1980s, the royalty produced about 2% of gross proceeds, and the Navajo Nation sought an increase.
- In 1984, a Bureau of Indian Affairs Area Director issued an opinion increasing the royalty to 20% of gross proceeds; Peabody appealed within the Department of the Interior.
- While the appeal was pending, the Secretary suggested renewed negotiations; in 1987, the Navajo Nation and Peabody amended the lease to a 12.5% royalty, which the Secretary approved.
- In 1993, the Navajo Nation sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims under the Indian Tucker Act seeking about $600 million, alleging the United States breached statutory and fiduciary duties in connection with the 1987 amendments, including alleged improper influence affecting approval.

## Issues

1. Whether the Navajo Nation identified statutes or regulations that impose specific fiduciary or other duties that are money-mandating and thus support damages under the Indian Tucker Act for the United States’ actions relating to the 1987 lease amendment approval.
2. Whether the Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 635(a), 638), SMCRA (30 U.S.C. § 1300(e)), or generalized “common-law” trust principles based on federal “comprehensive control” supply a money-mandating basis for liability.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit.
- The Court held that none of the additional statutes relied on by the Federal Circuit provided a sound basis for a money-damages claim.
- Section 635(a) of the Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act did not govern Lease 8580 and, in any event, did not impose money-mandating fiduciary duties.
- Section 638’s general authorization of rehabilitation and development funding did not create specific duties concerning coal lease terms or royalties.
- SMCRA § 1300(e) did not impose specific fiduciary obligations regarding negotiation, approval, or royalty terms of Indian coal leases and was not money-mandating.
- General trust relationship concepts and assertions of federal “comprehensive control” could not substitute for a specific, rights-creating or duty-imposing, money-mandating statute or regulation.
- The Court concluded the tribe’s claim for compensation failed and the matter should be regarded as closed.

## Legal Principles

- The United States cannot be sued for money damages absent a waiver of sovereign immunity tied to a substantive source of law that can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation.
- The Tucker Act and Indian Tucker Act are jurisdictional; they do not themselves create substantive rights or fiduciary duties.
- A plaintiff seeking Indian Tucker Act damages must identify specific statutory or regulatory prescriptions establishing enforceable duties and allege a failure to perform them.
- General federal-tribal trust language, broad programmatic goals, or the fact of extensive federal regulation (“comprehensive control”) does not, without more, create money-mandating fiduciary duties.
- Liability for breach of trust in damages depends on specific statutory or regulatory duties analogous to trustee obligations, not generalized trust principles.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Navajo Nation could not recover money damages under the Indian Tucker Act for the United States’ role in approving coal-lease amendments because the cited statutes and generalized trust principles did not impose specific, money-mandating duties governing the lease’s royalty terms or approval process.


United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009)