Navajo Nation v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011 · Property

631 F.3d 1268

Updated July 9, 2026

propertyFifth Amendmenttakingsstatute of limitations28 U.S.C. § 2501accrualtemporary regulatory takingripeness

Facts

After disputes between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe over land within the 1934 Reservation, DOI Commissioner Bennett in 1966 imposed a mutual-consent requirement for development in the area west of the 1882 Reservation, later known as the Bennett Freeze area. Congress codified that requirement in the 1980 Amendment, providing that any development in the Bennett Freeze area could occur only with the written consent of each tribe, except near Moenkopi and Tuba City. In August 1982, the Hopi Tribe imposed a moratorium on further Navajo construction activities in the area. The Navajo Nation filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims on August 25, 1988, alleging a Fifth Amendment taking of its right to develop the land.

Issue

When did the Navajo Nation's takings claim accrue for purposes of the six-year jurisdictional statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2501? Specifically, did accrual occur when Congress enacted the 1980 Amendment, when the Hopi Tribe later imposed its moratorium in 1982, or only when the underlying land dispute ended in 2006?

Rule

A claim in the Court of Federal Claims is barred unless filed within six years after it first accrues. A Fifth Amendment takings claim accrues when all events fixing the government's alleged liability have occurred—i.e., when the governmental action that allegedly takes or restricts the property interest occurs—and not when third parties later act, when damages become fully known, or when a temporary regulation later ends, so long as the governmental action is final.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 2012, Congress enacted a statute providing that any new construction on a tract of federally administered grazing land near Flagstaff, Arizona could occur only with the written consent of a neighboring tribal council. The neighboring council denied every request beginning in 2015. In 2019, Desert Mesa Ranch filed a takings suit in the Court of Federal Claims against the United States.

When did the ranch's takings claim most likely accrue for purposes of the six-year jurisdictional limitations period?

Explanation. A takings claim in the Court of Federal Claims accrues when all events fixing the government's alleged liability have occurred, meaning when the governmental action that allegedly restricts the property interest occurs. The later blanket denials were third-party conduct, and later consequences or fuller damage do not delay accrual. Because the statute itself was the final governmental directive restricting development, accrual occurred in 2012. (Derived from Navajo Nation v. United States (n.d.).)