Federal Common Law Trespass on Indian Allotted Land: ENABLE Midstream Partners v. Allottees

Introduction

In the case of Marcia W. Davilla et al. v. ENABLE Midstream Partners L.P. et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit addressed critical issues surrounding trespass on Indian allotted land and the subsequent application of federal versus state law in determining equitable remedies. The plaintiffs, a group of Native American Allottees holding equitable title to land in Anadarko, Oklahoma, sued ENABLE Midstream Partners for continuing to operate a natural gas pipeline after the expiration of a twenty-year easement. The central issues revolved around the validity of the trespass claim under federal common law and the appropriateness of the district court's issuance of a permanent injunction based on state equitable principles.

Summary of the Judgment

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Allottees, holding ENABLE liable for trespass and ordering the removal of the pipeline. ENABLE appealed both the liability ruling and the permanent injunction. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment on trespass, confirming that ENABLE's continued operation of the pipeline constituted trespass under incorporated Oklahoma law. However, the court reversed the issuance of the permanent injunction, remanding the matter for further consideration of equitable factors as per federal standards.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively referenced federal cases that delineate the relationship between federal and state law, especially in the context of Indian affairs. Key precedents include:

• Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle: Affirmed the plenary power of Congress over Indian tribes, emphasizing that Indian relations are exclusively under federal jurisdiction.
• Pub. Serv. Co. v. Barboan: Discussed the historical context of the Allotment Era and Congress's role in allotting reservation land to promote assimilation.
• NAHNO-LOPEZ v. HOUSER: Explored trespass claims on Indian allotted land, highlighting the application of federal common law where state law lacks specificity.
• EBAY INC. v. MERCEXCHANGE: Established the four-factor test for granting permanent injunctions in federal courts.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the application of federal common law to trespass claims on Indian allotted land. It recognized that while there is no explicit federal statute governing trespass in this context, the principles of federal common law necessitate borrowing state law where federal policy does not preclude it. Specifically, Oklahoma's trespass laws were incorporated to determine liability, given the absence of conflicting federal regulations.

Regarding the permanent injunction, the court emphasized that equitable remedies should adhere to federal standards rather than being dictated by state law. The district court had improperly applied Oklahoma's simplified injunction rule instead of the federal four-factor test, thereby necessitating a reversal and remand for proper equitable analysis.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the supremacy of federal common law in matters concerning Indian allotted lands, particularly in areas where state law is silent or insufficient. It underscores the necessity for uniform federal standards in granting equitable remedies, ensuring consistency across jurisdictions. Future cases involving trespass on Indian land will likely cite this decision to justify the application of state trespass laws under federal common law and to delineate the boundaries of equitable relief under federal standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Federal Common Law

Unlike state laws, federal common law is not codified but developed through federal court decisions. It applies in specific areas like Indian affairs where Congress has vested significant authority.

Trespass on Indian Allotted Land

Trespass in this context refers to unauthorized physical entry or maintenance of a structure on land held in trust for Native American Allottees. The court applies Oklahoma's trespass definitions to assess ENABLE's liability.

Permanent Injunction

A permanent injunction is a court order requiring a party to do or cease doing a specific action permanently. Under federal law, granting such an injunction involves a rigorous four-factor test to ensure fairness and necessity.

Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit's decision in ENABLE Midstream Partners v. Allottees reinforces the application of federal common law in adjudicating trespass claims on Indian allotted land. While affirming ENABLE's liability for trespass under Oklahoma law, the court corrects the misuse of state equitable principles in issuing a permanent injunction, mandating adherence to federal standards instead. This judgment not only clarifies the boundaries between state and federal law in such disputes but also ensures that equitable remedies are applied uniformly across federal jurisdictions, safeguarding the interests of Indian Allottees within the framework of federal legal supremacy.