Prologue — Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. United States (No. 05-457)

oe Se oF os 4 *,

Cait

In The.

Supreme Court of the cane ay

+

COMMONWEALTH OF THE

NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS,

Petitioner.

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

S

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Ninth Circuit

¢

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

°

JAMES D. LIVINGSTONE, Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

Commonwealt! of the Northern Mariana Islands

Caller Box 10007, Saipan, MP 96950

Tel: (670) 664-2341; Fax: (670) 664-2349

KENNETH BARDEN, Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

Commonwealth of the Nerthern Mariana Islands

Caller Box 10007, Saipan, MP 96950

Tel: (670) 664-2341; Fax: (670) 664-2349

Counsel of Record

Atturney for Petitioner Commonwealth

of the Northern Mariana Islands

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING, CO) (som) 225 Goe4

OR CALL COLLECT | 02: 342-2831

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Did the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands retain possession of the submerged lands that

connect and surround the islands of the Commonwealth

through the “Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of

the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the

United States of America” particularly in light of the

fiduciary duties owed by the United States?

ii

LIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

The parties to the proceeding are:

(1) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands and

(2) United States of America.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

=

Page

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.................... i

LIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ............... ii

eR Ego. 8 a Se iv

CITATIONS OF OPINIONS ENTERED IN THISCASE.. =}

BASIS FOR SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION ...... 1

STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED iN THE

+ SERIE REE corsets Seems Neen RON ee 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............:..:cecesereerenesees seit 2 ae

Fs EER, NE ERO OAL ERC TERE 7p ENE 8

A. Ninth Circuit Failed To Follow Existing

Supreme Court Precedent Regarding The

Proper Reading Of The Covenant ..................... 9

B. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Not To Consider

The Trustee-Beneficiary Relationship Of The

Parties Is Contrary To The Precedent Of This

SEPT Th seseciioisinepveschasiticheshsibeaies Stocncishethiipaeniteiasldbibaigiiaeabasstiet 14

C. The Proceeding Involves A Question Of

Exceptional Importance, In That The Result,

If Undisturbed, Will Result In The Common-

wealth Having No Ownership Of The Oceanic

Submerged Lands That Connect And Bind Its

i clinenscsinnnsiisilicentinahitsiintnincuiinamepipialddbedgiagien P< |

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531

SUI i viiclidcleahsdioiadiiclinkenseinidtenaiibienianiunanibiinel dit ides cease aIia i 12

Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., 45 F.3d 1317 (9th Cir.

UTE bn ustinsstaidb baliciesdincictinhibaw ohesicaiinsiedabeisicnbeinltn thik bin ubumegnlantiaten 16

Barusch v. Calvo, 685 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1982)................. 2

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v.

Atalig, 723 F.2d 682 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied,

Ne es Be GIO cisecisivdcnosisnsisovasecedeadehns Apundcebibacene 4,6

Edwards v. Miller, 378 N.E.2d 583 (LL. App. 1978).......... 16

Fleming v. Department of Public Safety, 837 F.2d

401 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 889

| RAEI NE RD AS OR eae OTT BREA MONO ORE TOE SORE 5

Hamilton v. Myers, 281 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2002).............. 12

Hillblom v. United States, 896 F.2d 426 (9th Cir.

EN icicsksutideRinaditansiaaldetcanecdbabideienhaliatnd dite daucsobonicadebiadsndat 5

Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1 (1899)........ cece ceceeececeeeeee cee 10

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S»+553 (1903).........000.. cece ce i)

Minn. v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526

usta aN III ciiaidisideddeceadeseiishabindebsiaedeeieabseadienlapriieaticess 10

Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States, 624 F.2d

A eee 15

Ngiraibiochel v. Trust Territory, 1 TTR 485 (1958) .......... 12

People of Saipan v. United States Department of

Interior, 502 F.2d 90 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied,

ee ee 6 OND oi bitetapiniasctacipctiiniddinviavedanindasiiaaierd 16

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

Rayphand v. Sablan, 95 F. Supp.2d 1133 (D.N.M.I.

1999), aff’d sub nom. Torres v. Sablan, 528 U.S.

ESERIES pee & : “OPN ena ee aa aan

Sagana v. Tenorio, 384 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2004),

cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 13813 (2005)...............cccceesecseeeecees 4

Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286

a 15

Seufert Bros. Co. v. United States, 249 U.S. 194

LSS TATE CR Ce. SPCR ey oy SO One 10

Temengil v. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,

881 F.2d 647 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 496

CIT RESO aa eon eee ae 3

Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681 (1942).................0000. 10

United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947)............ 7,17

United States v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391 (1973).................... 15

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983)................. 15

United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905) .................. 10

United States ex rel. Richards v. Guerrero, 4 F.3d

SR REECE ere tone en oe ae 4

Wabol v. Villacrusis, 958 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1990),

cert. denied, sub nom. Philippine Goods, Inc. v.

Wabol, 506 U.S. 1027 (1992).............. ae Stee 6

Washington v. Washington State Commercial

Passenger, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) ..............cccccececceeeeeeees 9,10

Washington v. Yakima Indian jvation, 439 U.S. 463

nee IEEE SR SAG Ka pear a OR a 10

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1980)............0006. 10

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Laney, 199 F.3d 281 (5th

SE SE eviasdeerinstbatipitiscpethtatecipatilianins ele cdiieeeaar caeela aa. 13

CONSTITUTION

8 SE Se a at Ne 5

U.S. Const. art. IV, Section 3, Clause 2 ........0...cccccccecceeeeeees 5

STATUTES

ee ee Se eritcchcesiectcioiisnsnthaktiekanidilis bind eibah ce negate 2. 1

NS Ee Ee cccircercidnitcinicinntimhiaedbieniiiplamit? 2

a III iacetenjeiedictephionbnbicésshasiahisatelinclons nite ia aii ate 1

Se Sly Oe ei etiniceccticniintvhviinedientinineliieatinapinicemidieniinied. 13

gS SE ee a eS ee OAT 13

es Be IE eciilesitendistnceea acti esabsdgtteiite tela tiicteiaee 13

48 U.S.C. § 1801, Pub.L.No. 94-241, § 1, Mar. 24,

SESE aaa ay eee ae es a passim

Marine Sovereignty Act of 1980, 2 N. Mar. I.Code

Se EN PUIIET vibcieslibinstisitapiichaianimaieiiindeibcinddindheteatiedseetnee teak 3

Submerged Lands Act in 1979, 2 N. Mar. L.Code

Se EE td Aielba bn iehicnsilaihindethas elie sipths tian des Catia. 3

vil

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ~ Continued

Page

OTHER AUTHORITIE

122 Cong. Rec. 7273 (Mar. 18, 1976)...........:cccccsecessessereees 11

George T. Bogert, The Law of Trust and Trustees,

Re MI, | OUT iininirdtisicaiesecasegicclcicesnk Wei deceksnidcticaiad lies 16

George T. Bogert, Trusts, § 95 (6th ed. 1987)... 16

Restatement of the Law of Restitution, Section 191,

SD: Be cosine canedeiepttahiicinsccnshanidliabbbdecicdiietseadninibaimianisbe retest dies ll

Secretarial Order No. 2969, 40 Fed.Reg. 811, 812

CRUD ccsiiiensdctpvictedansisinentevinvciinenianinimdiiminliosiabaananl 12

1

CITATIONS OF OPINIONS

ENTERED IN THIS CASE

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. United

States, 399 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2005). App. 1.

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. United

States, 279 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2002).

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. United

States, 2003 WL 23009000 (D.N.M.I. Aug. 8, 2003). App. 20.

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. United

States, 2003 WL 22997235 (D.N.M.I. Aug. 7, 2003). App. 21.

°

BASIS FOR SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered its

judgment on February 24, 2005. App. 1. Petitioner Com-

monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (“Common-

wealth”) seeks review of that judgment on a writ of

certiorari. idiledaen

On April 15, 2005, the Commonwealth timely filed a

petition for rehearing en banc in the Court of Appeals. On

July 8, 2005, the Court of Appeals filed an order denying

both the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehear-

ing en banc. App. 81. The present petition is timely filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c) and under Rule 13 of this Court.

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)

to review on a writ of certiorari the judgment of a federal

court of appeals.

2

STATUTORY PROVISION

INVOLVED IN THE CASE

“Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the

Unite] States of America.” 48 U.S.C. § 1801, Pub.L.No. 94-

241, § 1, Mar. 24, 1976, 90 Stat. 263. App. 82.

+

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

filed this case to quiet title to the “submerged lands”

surrounding and connecting its islands. The United States

District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands had

jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1346(f) and Section 903 of the “Covenant to Establish a

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in

Political Union with the United States of America,” 48

U.S.C. § 1801, Pub.L.No. 94-241, § 1, Mar. 24, 1976, 90

Stat. 263 (the “Covenant”). The decision of the Ninth

Circuit ignored the fiduciary duties of the United States

and has erroneously left the Commonwealth with practi-

cally none of the submerged lands that connect its islands.

An understanding of this case requires a brief sum-

mary of the history of the Commonwealth and the position

of the Commonwealth with respect to the federal govern-

ment. “The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas .. .

has a unique political status which makes this case differ-

ent from any that might arise in a territory of the United

States.” Barusch v. Calvo, 685 F.2d 1199, 1202 (9th Cir.

1982).

Lying on the crest of the Mariana submarine ridge at

the western boundary of the Pacific Ocean, the sixteen

3

islands of tre Commonwealth occupy a total dry land area

of approximately 184 square miles. People of Chamorro

and Carolinian descent have inhabited the largest three

islands in the chain — Saipan, Rota, and Tinian — for

centuries. The total territory claimed by the Common-

wealth under its laws, including a 200-mile zone of ocean

surrounding the islands, is 264,000 square miles. Dry land

constitutes approximately 0.1% of this total. The Com-

monwealth’s claims are set forth in the Commonwealth’s

Submerged Lands Act in 1979, 2 N. Mar. I.Code §§ 1211-

1231, and its Marine Sovereignty Act of 1980, 2 N. Mar.

I.Code §§ 1101-1143. The ocean and its resources have

always played a key role in the lives of the people of this

island community.

Following World War II, “the United States and the

Security Council of the United Nations entered into a

Trusteeship Agreement under which the United States

accepted administrative responsibility for the people of

Micronesia [including the Northern Mariana islands].”

Temengil v. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, 881 F.2d

647, 649 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 925 (1990).

Under the Trusteeship Agreement, the “paramount duty of

the United States was to steward Micronesia to self

government.” Id. The Trust Agreement also obligated the

United States to “promote the economic advancement and

self-sufficiency of the inhabitants ... |and] protect the

inhabitants against the loss of their lands and re-

sources. ...” App. 101, Art. 6.2. The United States held all

the property interests of the people of the Trust Territory

in trust on their behalf. App. 99, Art. 2, 3.

The United States and the Northern Mariana Islands

reached an agreement to form the Commonwealth on

February 15, 1975. That mutually binding agreement was

—_

set forth in the “Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth

of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with

the United States of America.” The voters of the Com-

monwealth approved the Covenant in 1975 and the U.S.

Congress enacted it into law in 1976. App. 3 (citations

omitted). The people of the Commonwealth remained

under the Trusteeship until 1986 when the Covenant was

fully implemented. App. 4 (citing Sagana v. Tenorio, 384

F.3d 731, 733-34 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct.

1313 (2005)). In other words, a trustee-beneficiary rela-

tionship existed between the United States (trustee) and

the people of the Northern Marianas (beneficiaries)

throughout the Covenant negotiations. the vote on the

Covenant, and its implementation.

“The Covenant has created a ‘unique’ relationship

between the United States and the CNMI, its provisions

alone define the boundaries of those relations.” United

States ex rel. Richards v. Guerrero, 4 F.3d 749, 754 (9th

Cir. 1993) (citing Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands v. Atalig, 723 F.2d 682, 687 (9th Cir. 1984), -ert.

denied, 467 U.S. 1244 (1984)). The United States did not

assume absolute dominion over the Commonwealth

through the Covenant. The Covenant established the

United States’ sovereignty over the Commonwealth while

preserving specific areas of self-governance. App. 82,

§§ 101, 103; United States ex rel. Richards, 4 F.3d at 754

(“the authority of the United States towards the CNMI

arises solely under the Covenant.”). The Covenant granted

United States citizenship to the indigenous residents of

the Commonwealth and afforded them al! of the privileges

and immunities of that citizenship. App. 83-84, §§ 301-304.

Commonwealth residents are not, however, represented in