FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

942 F.3d 916 (2019)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
942 F.3d 916 (2019)

Facts

FMC Corporation (plaintiff) owned and operated an elemental-phosphorus-production plant on fee land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation for 52 years. Fee lands are lands located on an Indian reservation but owned by an individual or entity outright, often a non-Indian. FMC’s operations produced approximately 22 million tons of hazardous waste that was stored on the reservation. The waste was poisonous, radioactive, and carcinogenic. In 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared the FMC plant to be a National Priority List Superfund site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. The list identified the nation’s most hazardous waste sites. In 1997, the EPA charged FMC with violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The EPA negotiated a consent decree with FMC that would allow FMC to pay a substantial fine to the EPA rather than engage in protracted litigation that was likely to result in liability for a significantly higher amount in damages. However, a condition of the consent decree was that FMC had to obtain a permit from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (tribes) (defendants) for the storage of hazardous waste on the reservation. FMC and the tribes negotiated an agreement under which FMC was to pay the tribes $1.5 million per year for the necessary permit. FMC paid the fee from 1998 to 2001. However, once FMC ceased active plant operations in 2002, it refused make any further payments. The waste remained on the reservation. The tribes sued FMC in tribal court and the court held that FMC owed $19.5 million in unpaid permit fees for 2002 to 2014 and $1.5 million in annual permit fees going forward. After the tribal court issued its decision, FMC sued the tribes in federal district court, seeking a declaration that the tribal court lacked jurisdiction because FMC was not a tribe member and that the court’s judgment was therefore unenforceable. The district court held in the tribes’ favor, concluding that the tribal court had jurisdiction. FMC appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Fletcher, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership