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:
“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)
“The source of our actions resides in an unconscious propensity to regard ourselves as the center, the cause, and the conclusion of time. Our reflexes and our pride transform into a planet the parcel of flesh and consciousness we are.”
—E.M. Cioran (b. 1911)
“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)