Dine Citizens Against Ruining v. Bureau of Indian Affairs
932 F.3d 843
9th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (conservation groups) sued federal agencies (Interior, BIA, OSMRE, BLM, FWS) challenging ESA and NEPA compliance for approvals that reauthorized Navajo Mine operations and associated lease and rights-of-way.
- The Record of Decision and related permits (2015) authorized continued mining and lease amendments; NTEC (Navajo Transitional Energy Company), wholly owned by the Navajo Nation, purchased the Mine and invested substantial capital in reliance on those approvals.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, vacatur of agency decisions (Biological Opinion, EIS, Record of Decision), remand, and injunctions stopping certain mine-related activities pending compliance.
- NTEC intervened solely to move to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 / 12(b)(7), arguing it was a required party whose interests would be impaired and that it could not be joined because of tribal sovereign immunity.
- District court granted dismissal for failure to join NTEC; Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding NTEC a required party, an arm of the Navajo Nation (immune from suit), and that dismissal was appropriate under Rule 19(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NTEC has a legally protected interest under Rule 19(a) | NTEC has no protected interest in procedural suits enforcing NEPA/ESA | NTEC argues vacatur would impair its existing lease, permits, and investments | Held: NTEC has a protected interest because vacatur could retroactively impair already-granted leases/permits and revenue streams |
| Whether existing parties (federal defendants or APS) adequately represent NTEC | Plaintiffs: federal defendants (and APS) can adequately represent any interests | NTEC: federal agencies’ interest is statutory compliance, not protecting Navajo Nation’s sovereign economic interests | Held: Federal defendants and APS cannot adequately represent NTEC’s sovereign economic and governance interests |
| Whether NTEC can be feasibly joined given tribal sovereign immunity | Plaintiffs: joinder is feasible (or alternative relief available) | NTEC: NTEC is an arm of the Navajo Nation and immune from suit; Congress has not abrogated immunity | Held: NTEC is an arm of the Navajo Nation and shares tribal sovereign immunity, so it cannot be joined |
| Whether the public‑rights exception to Rule 19(b) allows the suit to proceed without NTEC | Plaintiffs & U.S. amicus: public rights exception applies because plaintiffs challenge public rights (agency compliance) | NTEC: exception inapplicable because relief sought would destroy legal entitlements (leases/permits) of NTEC | Held: Exception does not apply — suit risks destroying NTEC’s legal entitlements, so dismissal under Rule 19(b) is proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. California, 547 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2008) (clarifies identification of legally protected interests under Rule 19)
- Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity, 910 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990) (procedural claims alone do not create protected interests unless relief would affect existing entitlements)
- Kescoli v. Babbitt, 101 F.3d 1304 (9th Cir. 1996) (suit threatening tribes’ lease-derived revenues and sovereignty renders tribes necessary parties)
- White v. Univ. of Cal., 765 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2014) (federal defendants may be inadequate to represent tribal interests when interests can diverge)
- Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (application of public‑rights exception in NEPA/ESA lease context where lessees retained contractual entitlements)
- National Licorice Co. v. N.L.R.B., 309 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1940) (origin of public‑rights exception permitting suit without joinder of private parties when public rights enforcement does not destroy private entitlements)
- Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2006) (tribal enterprises that function as arms of the tribe share sovereign immunity)
- Cook v. AVI Casino Enters., Inc., 548 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2008) (tribal corporations acting as tribal arms enjoy tribe’s sovereign immunity)