SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP. AND POWER v. Lee
672 F.3d 1176
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District and Headwaters Resources operate the Navajo Generating Station on Navajo reservation land; they fired two Navajo Nation employees who filed charges alleging violation of Navajo Preference in Employment Act.
- The employees obtained right-to-sue notices and filed complaints with the Navajo Nation Labor Commission, arguing the tribe could regulate employment relations at the plant.
- Salt River Project and Headwaters argued the Navajo Nation lacked authority to regulate employment relations at the plant due to a 1969 lease-based waiver and a federal § 323 right-of-way extinguishing Indian uses of the land.
- The Navajo Nation Supreme Court held the Navajo Preference in Employment Act applied and remanded to proceed on the merits.
- Salt River Project and Headwaters filed a federal case seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Navajo officials responsible for enforcing the Act, alleging violations of federal law.
- The district court dismissed, holding the Navajo Nation was a necessary party under Rule 19 and immune from joinder; the Ninth Circuit reversed, allowing the action to proceed against officials under Ex parte Young.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Navajo Nation is a necessary party under Rule 19(a) | SRP and Headwaters: tribe must be joined to provide complete relief | Navajo officials: tribe may be required to protect interests | Not necessary; complete relief available without tribe |
| Whether the Navajo Nation would be impaired without joinder under Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i) | Navajo interests at stake in lease scope, employment, governance | Absent tribe would be impeded in protecting interests | Not necessary; adequately represented by officials |
| Whether joinder is required under Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii) due to risk of inconsistent obligations | Injunction against officials may bind tribe; risk of inconsistency | Injunction binds only named officials; no inconsistency | Not necessary; no inconsistent obligations risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits prospective relief against officials despite immunity)
- Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project, 276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002) (distinguishable lease-issue context; tribal officials could represent tribe")
- Shermoen v. United States, 982 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir. 1992) (adequate representation considerations under Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i))
- Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Aspaas, 77 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 1996) (federal common law governs tribe’s regulatory authority over non-members)