United States V. Navajo Nation - Conclusion

Conclusion

The Court ruled that an Indian Tribe must "identify a substantive source of law that establishes specific fiduciary or other duties." The opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that the IMLA could not be interpreted to require the Secretary to exercise broad authority to manage the tribe's resources for the tribe's benefit. Instead, the tribe itself controls negotiations and the Secretary has a more limited role in approving the agreements. The Court concluded that no provision of the IMLA entitled the tribe to monetary damages as a result of the government's role in the negotiations. Justice Souter, joined by justices Stevens and O’Connor, wrote a dissent arguing that the Secretary's approval power must be exercised for the tribe's benefit, and monetary damages may be awarded if the power is misused.

Read more about this topic:  United States V. Navajo Nation

Famous quotes containing the word conclusion:

    We must not leap to the fatalistic conclusion that we are stuck with the conceptual scheme that we grew up in. We can change it, bit by bit, plank by plank, though meanwhile there is nothing to carry us along but the evolving conceptual scheme itself. The philosopher’s task was well compared by Neurath to that of a mariner who must rebuild his ship on the open sea.
    Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)

    of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness
    of the flesh.
    Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep
    his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
    Bible: Hebrew Ecclesiastes (l. XII, 13)

    I’ve heard the wolves scuffle, and said: So this
    Is man; so what better conclusion is there
    The day will not follow night, and the heart
    Of man has a little dignity, but less patience
    Than a wolf’s....
    Allen Tate (1899–1979)