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
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the question presented was limited to the Mineral Leasing Act (IMLA).
According to United States (Petitioner), the United States argues that to hold the government liable under the Tucker Act or Indian Tucker Act, the claimant must specify at the outset a specific statutory or regulatory provision that the government violated.
Background and question before the Court
Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court at 10:04 a.m.
According to Justice Ginsburg, the question presented was limited to the Mineral Leasing Act (IMLA).
According to Justice Souter, justices asked whether the lack of an exclusion in the statute indicates an intent to permit liability.
Justices inquired about the applicability of IMLA to the lease in question.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned the use of testimony from federal officials years after the events.
- [1] f17746661cf5725d0d71-r1-e6d0e6b0a7809797.pdf, p. 1
- [2] f17746661cf5725d0d71-r1-e6d0e6b0a7809797.pdf, p. 4
- [3] f17746661cf5725d0d71-r1-e6d0e6b0a7809797.pdf, p. 37
- [4] f17746661cf5725d0d71-r1-e6d0e6b0a7809797.pdf, p. 38
- [5] f17746661cf5725d0d71-r1-e6d0e6b0a7809797.pdf, p. 39
- [6] f17746661cf5725d0d71-r1-e6d0e6b0a7809797.pdf, p. 40
What each side argues
United States (Petitioner)
According to United States (Petitioner), according to United States (Petitioner), the United States argues that to hold the government liable under the Tucker Act or Indian Tucker Act, the claimant must specify at the outset a specific statutory or regulatory provision that the government violated.
General Kneedler contends that Section 5 of the relevant statute does not suggest coverage of mineral leases.
Navajo Nation (Respondent)
According to Respondent (Carter G. Phillips), according to Respondent (Carter G. Phillips), the Navajo Nation asserts that the statute’s language, “business leases, including those for the development of mineral resources,” includes Indian mineral leases.
According to Mr. Phillips, counsel Phillips maintains that the lease in question is governed by the Mineral Leasing Act (IMLA).
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the question presented was limited to the Mineral Leasing Act (IMLA).
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter questioned whether the lack of an exclusion in the statute indicates an intent to permit liability.
Justice Ginsburg followed up by asking if the lease was governed by IMLA.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia expressed surprise at the introduction of testimony from federal officials years after the events.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
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.
- f17746661cf5725d0d71-r1-e6d0e6b0a7809797.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.