UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Plaintiff-Appellee: Rosita M. Charles

Defendant-Appellant: Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation

Judges handling the case: Gould and Mckeown as the circuit judges and Battaglia as the district judge

Matters before the court: The office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation had appalled district court demanding the summary of judgment of Rosita Charles.  The United States district Anthony J. Battaglia was the one who chaired the case with designation. The reason as to why the office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation was denied their requirements is basically to first take into consideration the need of the thousands of the Navajo tribal members who were displaced from their ancestral homes just because of what was stipulated by the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act (Johansen & Pritzker, 2008).

Deposition

            It is this decision that was perceived to have the ability of casting light on the arbitrary or the unfair processes that was used by the office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to reject the benefits that R. Charles and the members of the community could have received as they were promised in the process of being driven away from their homelands. Despite that, although such benefits did not have the potential of fully compensating the damages made as a result of violating human rights, at least it was the best means of ensuring that ONHIR have adhered to the basic standards of justice and fairness (Wilkins, 2003). 

            As much as this case is concerned, the court ended up reversing the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation’s denial for the court publication for the relocation benefits. The idea for that was to demand or to ensure that the case to the ONHIR have received a reward for all the relocation assistance given. According to the reasoning of the judges, it was important to first review the decision arrived by the ONHIR so as to aid in determining whether such reasoning was an abuse of discretion, capricious, or arbitrary. Otherwise, in case such a decision was to be if it was not being in accord with the law of the state. The same reasoning or decision was required to be supported by considerable evidence or else to be disapproved (Wilkins, 2003). 

Observations of the court lawyers

            Initially, before relocating people from their land, the federal government had promised them to be compensated. The way approved to be used to compensate them was to build for them homes and also offer them other associated relocation benefits. In order to be liable for such benefits, each person was to prove that he or she was the legal resident of that place. According to the views of the judges, there is a jurisdiction which existed during that period (Mark, 2015). Because of that, it was important for the judges handling this case to reverse the guarantee provided by the district court authorizing the provision of summary of the judgment as well as affirming the reasons as to why ONHIR was denied the relocation assist benefits demanded. Ideally, the recurring and considerable contact standards that the ruling judges applied was not perceived to the appropriate means of handling the case taking into consideration the current regulations that applies. The best court ruling standard that could have been used is basically the intent to residue with ultimately integrates the reasoning of the judges with the manifestations of such intent (Johansen & Pritzker, 2008). 

            This then implies that under this standard, it is evident that the determinations of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to reject the benefits that they were to receive from R. Charles are something that was ultimately supported by considerable evidence.  Therefore, it undeniable that R. Charles had become the owner and controller of the household back in the late 1983. Later on, she ended up joining Many Farms Chapter. During the hearing of this case, she ended up testifying that she continued visiting her aunt in her place of residence. Regardless of that, the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation had no option but to depend on the voluntary decision made by R. Charles to link with the Many Farms Chapter during the time she was given the responsibility of becoming the head of household (Mark , 2015).

            Later on, the conclusion that was arrived at by Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation is that R. Charles had ultimately failed to comply with the burden offering the relocation assistance rewards once she had been proven to be the head of household. Ideally, this is due to the fact that she had become the legal inhabitant of her aunt’s place. In accordance with the considerable difference that was afforded by the agency determinations, the court judges acknowledged that there was no any reversible made by the concluding decision by the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) (Johansen & Pritzker, 2008).         

 

 

 

 

                                               

                                                            References

Johansen, B. E., & Pritzker, B. (2008). Encyclopedia of American Indian history. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.

Mark ,Q. S. (2015). An Introduction to Native North America - Pearson eText. Routledge Press

Wilkins, D. E. (2003). The Navajo political experience. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.