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:
“Human affairs are so obscure and various that nothing can be clearly known. This was the sound conclusion of the Academic sceptics, who were the least surly of philosophers.”
—Desiderius Erasmus (1469–1536)
“The conclusion has never changed: the worst sort of people come here for the worst sort of reasons and put upon those of us who have conveniently forgotten where we came from and how we got here.”
—Anna Quindlen (b. 1952)
“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)