Background
Plaintiff Eddie Maloney, a Navajo citizen, applied for relocation benefits under the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of nineteen seventy-four. The Act provided benefits to heads of household who resided in areas partitioned to a tribe of which they were not members as of December twenty-two, nineteen seventy-four. The United States Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation denied the application, and the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the agency.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo and set aside the agency decision if it was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence. The court found that the hearing officer erred by treating the Bureau of Indian Affairs enumeration as creating a presumption of non-residence. The court also held that the adverse credibility determination regarding a witness named Darrell Woody was unsupported because the witness’s young age was not a legitimate basis for disbelief and his testimony was detailed. Furthermore, the record showed that the Plaintiff resided at both Cow Springs and Black Mesa during the relevant time, utilizing Black Mesa seasonally for winter activities such as caring for livestock and hauling water. This seasonal use and intent to reside constituted substantial evidence of residence on Hopi Partitioned Lands.
What it means going forward
The decision requires the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to grant relocation benefits to the Plaintiff immediately rather than remanding for further agency proceedings.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download