Crow Allottees Ass'n v. United States Bureau of Indian Affairs
705 F. App'x 489
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are the Crow Allottees Association and individual Crow Tribe members challenging the Crow Tribe–Montana Water Rights Compact (the Compact) and the Crow Tribe Water Rights Act of 2010 (Settlement Act).
- Plaintiffs sued the United States in district court seeking declaratory and other relief (including mandamus) and alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and due process; they disclaimed seeking monetary damages at this time.
- District court dismissed the suit on sovereign immunity grounds and for failure to state a claim; Plaintiffs appealed.
- Plaintiffs argued sovereign-immunity waivers exist in 5 U.S.C. § 702 (Administrative Procedure Act), 25 U.S.C. § 345, and 28 U.S.C. § 1353.
- The district court concluded § 345 and § 1353 do not waive immunity because the suit does not seek an initial/original allotment; it also found no final agency action under § 702 until Compact waivers became effective.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed on alternative grounds: Plaintiffs failed to state claims that would invalidate the Settlement Act/Compact, and statutory and constitutional arguments for private counsel or additional procedural rights lacked legal support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 25 U.S.C. § 345 or 28 U.S.C. § 1353 waive sovereign immunity | § 345/§ 1353 waive immunity for Plaintiffs' suit | Statutes waive immunity only for original/allotment claims; Plaintiffs do not seek an initial allotment | No waiver; statutes inapplicable because claim not for original allotment |
| Whether 5 U.S.C. § 702 (APA) waives sovereign immunity because of final agency action | § 702 waives immunity for Plaintiffs' claims | Court must find final agency action; district court thought action not final until Compact waivers effective | Court avoided resolving circuit split; affirmed dismissal on alternative grounds and noted waivers had become effective in any event |
| Whether the U.S. breached fiduciary duties (including duty to provide private counsel) | U.S. breached fiduciary duties by failing to obtain participation/consent, ensure Winters rights, provide private counsel | No statutory or common-law duty requires the U.S. to provide private counsel; trust-management is congressional/plenary function | Claim fails to state a basis to invalidate the Settlement Act; no entitlement to private counsel under cited statutes |
| Whether Plaintiffs had procedural due-process rights to consultation/representation during Compact negotiations | Plaintiffs entitled to consultation, private counsel, and consent rights | Legislative process was the proper procedure; no constitutional right to individualized participation in policy decisions | Procedural due-process claim fails; only legislative process was required |
Key Cases Cited
- Harger v. Dep't of Labor, 569 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for sovereign-immunity waiver questions)
- Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2011) (25 U.S.C. § 345 waiver limited to original allotment cases)
- Gros Ventre Tribe v. United States, 469 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussion of intra-circuit split on whether § 702 requires final agency action)
- United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162 (2011) (Congress has plenary authority over Indian affairs; management of Indian trusts is a sovereign function)
- Minn. State Bd. for Cmty. Colls. v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984) (no general constitutional right for the public to be heard in policymaking proceedings)
- United States v. Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Cmty., 391 F.2d 53 (9th Cir. 1968) (section 175 does not mandate that the United States pay for private counsel)