Arizona v. Navajo Nation
599 U.S. 555 (2023)
Rule of Law:
The 1868 treaty establishing the Navajo Reservation reserved necessary water to accomplish the reservation's purpose but did not impose an affirmative, judicially enforceable duty on the United States to take steps to secure water for the Tribe.
Facts:
- In 1848, the United States acquired vast new territory from Mexico in the American West, including lands historically inhabited by the Navajo Tribe.
- For two decades, the United States and the Navajo Tribe periodically engaged in warfare, during which many Navajos were forcibly moved to the Bosque Redondo Reservation.
- In 1868, the United States and the Navajo Tribe signed a peace treaty, establishing a large reservation for the Navajos in their original homeland in the western United States.
- The 1868 treaty 'set apart' a reservation for the 'use and occupation of the Navajo tribe' and included provisions for the U.S. to build schools, provide teachers for 10 years, supply seeds and agricultural implements for up to three years, and provide funding for livestock.
- The Navajo Reservation spans over 17 million acres, almost entirely within the arid Colorado River Basin, where water has long been scarce and is becoming more so.
- Despite the reservation encompassing numerous water sources and the Tribe having implicit reserved water rights, the Navajo Nation faces severe water scarcity, with many households lacking access to running water.
- Over the decades, the Federal Government has taken various steps to assist with water needs and authorized billions of dollars for water infrastructure on the Navajo Reservation.
- The Navajo Nation believes that these federal efforts have not fully satisfied the United States’ obligations under the 1868 treaty.
Procedural Posture:
- The Navajo Nation sued the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other federal parties in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, asserting a breach-of-trust claim arising out of the 1868 treaty.
- The States of Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado intervened in the District Court against the Navajo Nation to protect their interests in water from the Colorado River.
- The District Court dismissed the Navajo Nation's complaint, determining that the 1868 treaty did not impose a duty on the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the United States has a duty under the 1868 treaty to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajos.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 1868 treaty establishing the Navajo Reservation require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure needed water for the Navajo Nation, thereby giving rise to a judicially enforceable breach-of-trust claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Kavanaugh
No, the 1868 treaty establishing the Navajo Reservation did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe. To maintain a breach-of-trust claim against the United States, a tribe must establish that a treaty, statute, or regulation imposed specific, 'rights-creating or duty-imposing' obligations on the United States. The Federal Government owes judicially enforceable duties to a tribe 'only to the extent it expressly accepts those responsibilities.' The 1868 treaty, while setting aside a reservation for the Navajos' use, contains no language explicitly imposing an affirmative duty on the United States to secure water. The treaty did impose other specific duties on the U.S. (e.g., building schools, providing seeds for a limited period), demonstrating that the parties knew how to impose specific affirmative obligations. While a general trust relationship exists, the Court will not 'apply common-law trust principles' to infer duties not found in the text unless a conventional trust relationship is expressly created with respect to a particular trust asset. The Court emphasized that it is not the Judiciary’s role to rewrite or update a 155-year-old treaty to address modern water needs, as water allocation in the arid West is often a zero-sum issue best left to Congress and the President. Arguments that the 'permanent home' clause or the provision of seeds and agricultural implements imply an affirmative water duty are unpersuasive. Similarly, the United States' purported control over water resources does not alone create a judicially enforceable duty without explicit language in the treaty, statute, or regulation.
Concurring - Thomas
While joining the Court’s opinion in full, Justice Thomas agreed the Navajo Nation's breach of trust claim should not go forward because the Nation pointed to no source of legally enforceable duties. He wrote separately to highlight the 'troubling aspect' of the Court's frequent invocation of an amorphous 'general trust relationship' between the United States and Indian people. He argued that this language has often been misunderstood by lower courts as recognizing a generic legal duty or placing a thumb on the scale in favor of tribes, blurring the lines between the political branches' general moral obligations and specific, judicially enforceable fiduciary obligations. Justice Thomas contended that the United States, as a sovereign, assumes Indian trust responsibilities 'only to the extent it expressly accepts those responsibilities by statute,' meaning duties must be defined and governed by positive law, not common-law trust principles. He also criticized the 'trust relationship' idea for influencing the development of pro-Indian 'canons of construction' and the so-called 'plenary power' of Congress over Indian affairs, arguing these lack clear historical or constitutional support. He called for clarification on the exact status of this 'amorphous and seemingly ungrounded' trust relationship, noting that many prior statements were mere dicta.
Dissenting - Gorsuch
Yes, the 1868 treaty, read in conjunction with other provisions, the history surrounding its enactment, and background principles of Indian law, secures for the Navajo some measure of water rights. The United States, holding some of these water rights in trust for the Tribe, therefore owes a duty to manage them in a legally responsible manner, including by assessing what water rights it holds for them. Justice Gorsuch argued that the majority mischaracterizes the Navajo Nation's request, which is not to compel the U.S. to build pipelines or other infrastructure, but merely to identify the water rights it holds in trust for the Tribe and to formulate a plan to stop any misappropriation. He highlighted the historical context, including the Navajos' suffering at Bosque Redondo due to water scarcity and their insistence on returning to a homeland with abundant water during treaty negotiations, to show that water rights were central to the 'permanent home' promised in the 1868 treaty. Under the Winters doctrine, the promise of a permanent home necessarily implies certain benefits, including access to adequate water, without which the land would be 'practically valueless.' Given the United States' pervasive control over the Colorado River and its acknowledgment of holding water rights in trust for the Navajo, a fiduciary relationship exists, giving rise to a duty to account. Justice Gorsuch criticized the majority for applying the wrong legal framework (the Tucker Acts framework for damages claims) instead of the framework for equitable relief claims under 28 U.S.C. §1362, which allows tribes to bring claims the U.S. trustee could have brought. He concluded by noting the Navajos' repeated, unsuccessful attempts to get an accounting and suggested the Court's ruling might at least pave the way for successful intervention in future water rights litigation.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of judicially enforceable trust obligations owed by the United States to Native American tribes under treaties, particularly concerning implied duties. By requiring 'specific rights-creating or duty-imposing language' for affirmative federal actions, the Court reinforces a strict textualist approach to treaty interpretation when it comes to imposing new federal obligations. This ruling could make it harder for tribes to seek judicial remedies for historical or ongoing resource management issues unless an explicit duty is written into a treaty or statute, potentially shifting the burden more heavily towards legislative and executive action for addressing tribal needs. It also reaffirms the Court's reluctance to infer broad fiduciary duties from a general trust relationship or from governmental control alone, emphasizing the separation of powers in allocating resources like water in the arid Western United States.
