2002 Supreme Court term

UNITED STATES v. NAVAJO NATION.

Dockets 01-1375Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

The United States argued that there is no cause of action under the Tucker Act because no violation of any act of Congress or executive regulation exists.

According to United States, the United States alleged that the Secretary of the Interior had private conversations with representatives of Peabody Coal to discourage approval of a $20 rate.

According to Respondent (Paul E. Frye), the Navajo Nation, through respondent Paul E. Frye, argued that violations of trust duties by the federal government give rise to a claim for money damages in the Court of Federal Claims, citing the Mitchell II principle.

According to Petitioner (Navajo Nation), the Navajo Nation alleged that a decision was forthcoming that would hurt them and asked the Court to stop it, attributing responsibility to the Secretary.

Court records show that the tribe learned from Washington that they were requested to return to negotiations, and Secretary Hodel preferred negotiation over a final decision on the merits of the appeal.

Background and question before the Court

Oral argument in this case took place before the Supreme Court at 11:03 a.m.

Justice O'Connor asked whether there is some other possible cause of action.

What each side argues

United States (Petitioner)

According to United States, there is no cause of action under the Tucker Act because no violation of any act of Congress or executive regulation exists.

Navajo Nation (Respondent)

According to Respondent (Paul E. Frye), violations of trust duties by the federal government give rise to a claim for money damages in the Court of Federal Claims, as established in Mitchell II.

What happened at oral argument

Oral argument was held at 11:03 a.m. before the Supreme Court.

Justice O'Connor asked whether there is some other possible cause of action.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • ceb34a2fbea7d89cf134-r1-cc44c5520d408643.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.