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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0316%3A0

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Prologue
- **Published:** January 1, 2005

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0316%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.