Northern New Mexicans Protecting Land, Water & Rights v. United States, 704 F. App'x 723

Members of Northern New Mexicans Protecting Land, Water and Rights (a nonprofit of landowners) access their properties via Santa Fe County roads that cross San Ildefonso Pueblo lands; ownership/right-of-way for those roads is disputed.
In 2013 the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Superintendent sent a letter to Santa Fe County stating the County’s use of the roads was trespass, urging negotiation for an easement and warning of possible DOJ action if unresolved.
Northern New Mexicans sued the BIA claiming the letter clouded title, caused title insurers to refuse coverage, impeded sales, and thus injured members’ property interests.
The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, concluding plaintiffs lacked standing for Takings and quiet-title claims and that other claims were barred (or raised sovereign-immunity issues); Northern New Mexicans appealed.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, principally on justiciability ripeness and pleading-waiver grounds: APA and Takings claims not ripe; Quiet Title Act claim waived; Equal Protection and newly raised Due Process arguments not viable or forfeited.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
APA final-agency-action	BIA letter is a final agency action that harmed members by clouding title and causing insurer refusals	Letter was nonfinal, advisory, and urged negotiation; no legal consequences yet	Dismissed: letter not final; APA claim not ripe
Quiet Title Act	Letter clouded title and supports quiet-title relief regarding rights to use the roads	QTA suits involving Indian lands are barred absent U.S. consent; plaintiffs clarified they do not seek ownership so claim was ambiguous	Waived by plaintiffs on appeal; would fail on ownership standing if pressed
Takings Clause	BIA letter effects an uncompensated taking by impairing access and property value	Takings claim premature until plaintiffs pursue Tucker Act/compensation remedies and until government reaches final position	Dismissed as unripe under Williamson County/Tucker Act rule
Equal Protection / Fifth Amendment Due Process	Plaintiffs asserted discriminatory treatment and invoked Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo protections	Treaty claims are not privately enforceable here; plaintiffs failed to plead disparate treatment; Due Process claim not raised in complaint	Dismissed: Equal Protection fails; Due Process argument forfeited on appeal

Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (final-agency-action test for APA review)
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (ripeness and Tucker Act exhaustion for Takings claims)
Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (treaties do not necessarily create privately enforceable federal rights)
Schanzenbach v. Town of La Barge, 706 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2013) (Takings ripeness requires final government decision and Tucker Act remedy)
Kinscherff v. United States, 586 F.2d 159 (10th Cir. 1978) (standing/ownership limits under Quiet Title Act)
O’Donnell v. United States, 91 F.2d 14 (9th Cir. 1936) (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo not self-executing)
Conroy v. Vilsack, 707 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2013) (failure to brief or raise issues results in abandonment)