Arizona v. Navajo Nation

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Arizona v. Navajo Nation
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: March 20, 2023
Decided: June 22, 2023
Outcome
reversed
Vote
5-4
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting
Neil Gorsuch • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Arizona v. Navajo Nation is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 22, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. It was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 20, 2023. The case was consolidated with Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation for oral argument. In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversedthe judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that although the 1868 treaty reserved necessary water to accomplish the purpose of the Navajo Reservation the treaty did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned a water rights dispute over the Colorado River. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "I. Does the Ninth Circuit Opinion, allowing the Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the Secretary to develop a plan to meet the Nation's water needs and manage the mainstream of the LBCR so as not to interfere with that plan, infringe upon this Court's retained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the LBCR mainstream in Arizona v. California?
    II. Can the Nation state a cognizable claim for breach of trust consistent with this Court's holding in Jicarilla based solely on unquantified implied rights to water under the Winters Doctrine?"[2]
  • The outcome: In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that although the 1868 treaty reserved necessary water to accomplish the purpose of the Navajo Reservation the treaty did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe. Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • November 4, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • March 20, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • April 28, 2021: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to allow the Navajo Nation to amend its complaint.[3]
    • May 17, 2022: The States of Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, collectively referred to as "Arizona", appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.[4]
    • June 22, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    Background

    Ninth Circuit opinion

    On April 28, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit remanded the case to allow the Navajo Nation to amend its complaint. Judge Ronald Gould authored the court's majority opinion:[3]

    “ In 2003, the Navajo Nation (the Nation) sued the Department of the Interior (Interior), the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary), the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (collectively, the Federal Appellees), bringing claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a breach of trust claim for failure to consider the Nation's as-yet-undetermined water rights in managing the Colorado River. Several parties, including Arizona, Nevada, and various state water, irrigation, and agricultural districts and authorities (collectively, the Intervenors), intervened to protect their interests in the Colorado's waters. In a prior appeal, we held that while the Nation lacked Article III standing to bring its NEPA claims, its breach of trust claim was not barred by sovereign immunity, and we remanded to the district court. Navajo Nation v. Dep't of Interior (Navajo I), 876 F.3d 1144, 1174 (9th Cir. 2017). After re-considering the breach of trust claim, the district court dismissed the Nation's complaint because of its view that any attempt to amend the complaint was futile. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the claim because the Supreme Court reserved jurisdiction over allocation of rights to the Colorado River in Arizona v. California (Arizona I), 373 U.S. 546, 83 S.Ct. 1468, 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963) (opinion); accord Arizona v. California (1964 Decree), 376 U.S. 340, 353, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964) (decree). The district court also held that the Nation did not identify a specific treaty, statute, or regulation that imposed an enforceable trust duty on the federal government that could be vindicated in federal court. The Nation appealed.


    We conclude that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint because, in contrast to the district court's determination, the amendment was not futile. Although the Supreme Court retained original jurisdiction over water rights claims to the Colorado River in Arizona I, the Nation's complaint does not seek a judicial quantification of rights to the River, so we need not decide whether the Supreme Court's retained jurisdiction is exclusive. And contrary to the Intervenors’ arguments on appeal, the Nation's claim is not barred by res judicata, despite the federal government's representation of the Nation in Arizona I. Finally, the district court erred in denying the Nation's motion to amend and in dismissing the Nation's complaint, because the complaint properly stated a breach of trust claim premised on the Nation's treaties with the United States and the Nation's federally reserved Winters rights, especially when considered along with the Federal Appellees’ pervasive control over the Colorado River. We remand to the district court with instructions to permit the Nation to amend its complaint.[5]

    		”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ I. Does the Ninth Circuit Opinion, allowing the Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the Secretary to develop a plan to meet the Nation's water needs and manage the mainstream of the LBCR so as not to interfere with that plan, infringe upon this Court's retained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the LBCR mainstream in Arizona v. California?
    II. Can the Nation state a cognizable claim for breach of trust consistent with this Court's holding in Jicarilla based solely on unquantified implied rights to water under the Winters Doctrine?[5]     		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that although the 1868 treaty reserved necessary water to accomplish the purpose of the Navajo Reservation, the treaty did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe. Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “

    In 1848, the United States won the Mexican-American War and acquired vast new territory from Mexico in what would become the American West. The Navajos lived within a discrete portion of that expansive and newly American territory. For the next two decades, however, the United States and the Navajos periodically waged war against one another. In 1868, the United States and the Navajos agreed to a peace treaty. In exchange for the Navajos’ promise not to engage in further war, the United States established a large reservation for the Navajos in their original homeland in the western United States. Under the 1868 treaty, the Navajo Reservation includes (among other things) the land, the minerals below the land’s surface, and the timber on the land, as well as the right to use needed water on the reservation.
    The question in this suit concerns “reserved water rights”—a shorthand for the water rights implicitly reserved to accomplish the purpose of the reservation. Cappaert v. United States, 426 U. S. 128, 138 (1976); see also Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 564, 576–577 (1908). The Navajos’ claim is not that the United States has interfered with their water access. Instead, the Navajos contend that the treaty requires the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajos—for example, by assessing the Tribe’s water needs, developing a plan to secure the needed water, and potentially building pipelines, pumps, wells, or other water infrastructure— either to facilitate better access to water on the reservation or to transport off-reservation water onto the reservation. In light of the treaty’s text and history, we conclude that the treaty does not require the United States to take those affirmative steps. And it is not the Judiciary’s role to rewrite and update this 155-year-old treaty. Rather, Congress and the President may enact—and often have enacted—laws to assist the citizens of the western United States, including the Navajos, with their water needs. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    I join the Court’s opinion in full, but write separately to highlight an additional and troubling aspect of this suit. For decades, this Court has referred to “a general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian people.” United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 225 (1983); see also Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U. S. 286, 296–297 (1942); Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U. S. ___, ___ (2023) (slip op., at 12). Here, in allowing the Navajo Nation’s “breach of trust” claim to go forward, the Ninth Circuit appears to have understood that language as recognizing a generic legal duty of the Federal Government toward Indian tribes or, at least, as placing a thumb on the scale in favor of declaring that legal duties are owed to tribes. See 26 F. 4th 794, 813 (2022). As the Court explains, the Nation has pointed to no source of legally enforceable duties supporting its claim in this suit. But the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning reflects deeper problems with this Court’s frequent invocation of the Indian “trust relationship.”[5]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “

    Today, the Court rejects a request the Navajo Nation never made. This case is not about compelling the federal government to take “affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajos.” Ante, at 2. Respectfully, the relief the Tribe seeks is far more modest. Everyone agrees the Navajo received enforceable water rights by treaty. Everyone agrees the United States holds some of those water rights in trust on the Tribe’s behalf. And everyone agrees the extent of those rights has never been assessed. Adding those pieces together, the Navajo have a simple ask: They want the United States to identify the water rights it holds for them. And if the United States has misappropriated the Navajo’s water rights, the Tribe asks it to formulate a plan to stop doing so prospectively. Because there is nothing remarkable about any of this, I would affirm the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and allow the Navajo’s case to proceed.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, "Arizona et al. v. Navajo Nation et al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," accessed June 23, 2023
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "21-1484 ARIZONA V. NAVAJO NATION QUESTION PRESENTED:," CERT. GRANTED November 4, 2022
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Navajo Nation v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, decided April 28, 2021
    4. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Arizona v. Navajo Nation On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit," filed May 17, 2022
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 20, 2022
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 20, 2022
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Arizona_v._Navajo_Nation&oldid=9611136"