From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...
Navajo Nation v. United States Department of the Interior
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
819 F.3d 1084 (2016)
Canyon de Chelly National Monument was a sacred site on the reservation of the Navajo Nation (plaintiff). Over many decades, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s National Park Service (park service) (defendant) removed 303 sets of human remains and associated funerary objects from Canyon de Chelly without the consent of the Navajo Nation for all but six sets of remains. Sometime after the park service ceased removal of remains and associated objects in 1990, the park service decided to inventory such remains and objects to repatriate them to culturally affiliated tribes pursuant to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (the repatriation act). In 1996, the Navajo Nation wrote a letter to the park service, claiming ownership of the remains and objects from Canyon de Chelly and objecting to the inventory process that the park service had been conducting. Eventually, the Navajo Nation participated under protest. The process was contentious, and the park service withdrew its draft inventory in 2007. Then, the park service sought an opinion from the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor as to whether the park service was required to comply with the repatriation act. The solicitor issued an informal opinion via email that determined that the park service must continue to inventory the remains and objects because the repatriation act required it. Ultimately, the Navajo Nation sued the park service after some back-and-forth regarding the solicitor’s opinion on the repatriation act’s applicability. The Navajo Nation claimed violations of several treaties and federal statutes. The district court concluded that no final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act had occurred, so it dismissed the suit as barred by sovereign immunity. The Navajo Nation appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Christen, J.)
Dissent (Ikuta, J.)
What to do next…
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 551,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 551,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.