Backcountry Against Dumps v. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against the Bureau of Indian Affairs challenging the authorization of a wind energy lease between the Campo Band of Diegueño Mission Indians and a renewable energy company. The Ninth Circuit noted that it was uncontested that the Band could not be joined in the lawsuit because of its sovereign immunity and agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the Band was a necessary party because the action’s disposition could affect the Band’s sovereign and economic interests, which would not be adequately represented by other parties to the lawsuit. The complaint’s allegations included that the federal defendants failed to disclose the project’s entire life cycle greenhouse gas emissions.

The federal district court for the Southern District of California dismissed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA’s) approval of a lease between the Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians (the Tribe) and a renewable energy company for development of a wind energy project. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the environmental impact statement failed to consider the project’s entire life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. In its order dismissing the case, the court concluded that the Tribe was a necessary party that could not be joined due to tribal sovereign immunity. The court further found that allowing the case to proceed absent the Tribe would prejudice the Tribe, and that the developer and BIA could not adequately represent the Tribe’s interests. Given this “unmitigable prejudice,” the court concluded “that this litigation cannot, in good conscience, continue in the Tribe’s absence.” The court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the action should be allowed to proceed under the “public rights” exception for litigation that transcends private interests and seeks to vindicate a public right. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision, which also overruled certain evidentiary objections and a motion to strike by the plaintiffs.