JoAnn Chase v. Andeavor Logistics, L.P., 12 F.4th 864

Andeavor operates the 500‑mile High Plains Pipeline across Fort Berthold Reservation tracts held in trust by the United States; a BIA‑granted 20‑year right‑of‑way originally began in 1953 and successive renewals expired in 2013.
Andeavor continued pipeline operations after expiration; it negotiated and settled a renewal with the Three Affiliated Tribes in 2017 but negotiations with individual allotted landowners (Allottees) stalled.
In October 2018 several Allottees filed a putative class action alleging federal common‑law trespass, breach of easement, unjust enrichment, and seeking damages and injunctive relief to remove the pipeline; the district court dismissed for failure to exhaust BIA administrative remedies.
On appeal, the BIA had already engaged: a Regional Director issued a trespass notice with damages, the Assistant Secretary vacated and remanded, then issued a decision asserting judicially reviewable agency action; later the Acting Secretary vacated prior BIA actions and directed further proceedings.
The Eighth Circuit held that (1) the district court erred in dismissing for failure to exhaust because the BIA lacks authority to grant all the relief sought, and (2) discretionary invocation of the primary jurisdiction doctrine is appropriate — the court reversed, remanded, and ordered a stay to permit the BIA to act further.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Administrative exhaustion of BIA remedies	BIA lacks authority to grant damages or full relief, so exhaustion is not required	Exhaustion required; BIA holdover process ongoing and review available	Dismissal for failure to exhaust was error; exhaustion not mandatory here because agency cannot provide all relief sought
Existence of federal common‑law trespass claim by individual Allottees	Allottees have federal common‑law trespass rights to enforce trust allotments	Federal common‑law trespass protection is limited to tribes with aboriginal title (Oneida line)	Court declined to decide; left question open and found BIA views may be dispositive; resolution deferred to agency/ later judicial review
Use of primary jurisdiction (stay vs. dismissal)	Court competent; primary jurisdiction unnecessary	Primary jurisdiction appropriate because BIA has special competence and has acted	Court invoked primary jurisdiction and remanded with a stay to permit BIA action before further judicial proceedings
Remaining contract/unjust enrichment/punitive claims	Seek judicial resolution now	These claims may be affected by BIA action and United States may be indispensable party	Court declined to decide and left these claims for district court after agency process concludes

Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, N.Y., 414 U.S. 661 (U.S. 1974) (establishes federal common‑law protection for tribal aboriginal land rights absent statutory guidance)
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 470 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1985) (reaffirms federal common‑law remedies for aboriginal Indian land rights)
McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1992) (exhaustion unnecessary when agency lacks authority to grant requested relief)
United States v. Western Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 59 (U.S. 1956) (describes primary jurisdiction doctrine and its application)
Wolfchild v. Redwood County, 824 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2016) (limits federal common‑law land claims to those based on aboriginal title; dismisses individual‑owner claims)
Klaudt v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 990 F.2d 409 (8th Cir. 1993) (discusses mandatory administrative exhaustion under detailed regulatory schemes)
Davilla v. Enable Midstream Partners, L.P., 913 F.3d 959 (10th Cir. 2019) (pipeline trespass context; notes uncertainty whether allotment owners have federal common‑law trespass claims)
Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382 (U.S. 1939) (federal courts traditionally decide controversies concerning allotted lands)