People of Saipan v. United States Department of Interior

502 F.2d 90 (1974)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

People of Saipan v. United States Department of Interior

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
502 F.2d 90 (1974)

Facts

The United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Trust Territory) (also known as Micronesia) entered into a treaty known as the Trusteeship Agreement in which the United States agreed to promote the economic advancement and self-sufficiency of the inhabitants of the Trust Territory and to regulate the use of the Trust Territory’s natural resources. In 1970, Continental Airlines applied to the government of the Trust Territory for permission to build a hotel adjacent to historical beaches on the island of Saipan. In 1972, against the advice of the applicable advisory board, the high commissioner of the Trust Territory, appointed at the federal level, executed a lease permitting Continental to build the hotel. The United States Department of the Interior (defendant) supported the high commissioner’s decision. After unsuccessfully seeking an injunction with the high court of the Trust Territory, the people of the Trust Territory filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, arguing violations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and that the Trusteeship Agreement guaranteed rights to the people that were enforceable in the court. The district court held that NEPA applies to federal agencies operating in the Trust Territory but that no federal action occurred. Further, the district court held that the Trusteeship Agreement did not create rights assertable in federal court. Thus, the district court dismissed the action. The people of the Trust Territory appealed. On appeal, the Department of the Interior argued that a treaty like the Trusteeship Agreement may only be argued in international court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Goodwin, 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 824,000 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 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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 824,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 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