Zurcher v. Stanford Daily
463 U.S. 545 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The McCarran Amendment provides state courts with jurisdiction to adjudicate Indian water rights as part of comprehensive stream adjudications, even in states admitted to the Union under enabling acts that disclaimed jurisdiction over Indian lands. Under the doctrine of wise judicial administration established in Colorado River, federal courts should dismiss or stay suits adjudicating Indian water rights, including those brought by tribes themselves, when there is a concurrent and adequate comprehensive adjudication in state court.
Facts:
- In Montana, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the United States filed separate lawsuits in federal court to determine the water rights of various Indian tribes in certain streams.
- Shortly after the federal suits were filed, the State of Montana initiated its own comprehensive state-court proceedings to adjudicate all water rights in the same streams.
- In Arizona, various water claimants filed petitions in state court to begin general adjudications of water rights in several river systems, and the United States was served as a party on its own behalf and as a trustee for Indian tribes.
- In response, a number of the affected Indian tribes filed lawsuits in federal court in Arizona, seeking independent federal determinations of their water rights and to block the state court proceedings.
- Both Arizona and Montana were admitted to the Union under Enabling Acts containing language by which the state disclaimed all right and title to Indian lands and agreed that such lands would remain under the 'absolute jurisdiction and control' of the United States Congress.
Procedural Posture:
- In the Montana cases, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the United States filed suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana to adjudicate Indian water rights.
- The District Court granted motions to dismiss the federal actions in deference to concurrent state court proceedings.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court's dismissal.
- In the Arizona cases, various Indian tribes filed suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona seeking determination of their water rights.
- The District Court dismissed most of the federal actions, deferring to ongoing state court adjudications.
- The tribes appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the dismissals.
- The defendants in both sets of cases (state governments and water users) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted and the cases were consolidated.
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 Colorado River abstention doctrine require a federal court to dismiss or stay an action to adjudicate Indian water rights when a concurrent, comprehensive adjudication is underway in a state court, even if that state's Enabling Act contains a disclaimer of jurisdiction over Indian lands and the federal suit is brought by the Indian tribes themselves?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes. A federal court should defer to a comprehensive state adjudication of water rights. First, any limitation that the Enabling Acts of Arizona and Montana may have originally placed on state-court jurisdiction over Indian water rights was removed by the McCarran Amendment. Congress intended the Amendment to apply nationwide to solve the problem of piecemeal water rights litigation, and to exclude states with large Indian populations and jurisdictional disclaimers would 'enervate the Amendment's objective.' Second, the Colorado River abstention doctrine applies with full force to suits brought by Indian tribes themselves, not just to those brought by the United States. The most important factor is the clear federal policy underlying the McCarran Amendment: the avoidance of piecemeal adjudication. Concurrent federal proceedings would be duplicative, create a potential for an unseemly race to judgment, and risk inconsistent dispositions of property, all of which runs contrary to the spirit of the McCarran Amendment.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
No. The abstention doctrine from Colorado River should not apply to these cases. Unlike the suit in Colorado River, these actions were brought by Indian tribes on their own behalf pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1362, which embodies a strong congressional policy of affording tribes a federal forum. Given Congress's recognition of the tribes' hesitancy to use state courts, federal courts should not lightly remit them to a state forum. This situation does not present the 'exceptional' circumstances required to justify abstention.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. A federal court has a duty to determine the existence and extent of a tribe's reserved water rights under federal law when its jurisdiction is properly invoked. The McCarran Amendment is a waiver of sovereign immunity, not a command for federal courts to abstain. Indian water rights, governed by the federal Winters doctrine, are fundamentally different from state-law water rights and should be adjudicated by federal courts, which have more expertise in federal law and treaties. Deferring to state courts, which may be hostile to Indian interests, undermines the guarantee of a neutral federal forum for tribes under 28 U.S.C. § 1362 and creates a risk that an entire state decree will need to be readjusted if the Supreme Court later finds an error in the state court's application of federal law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the Colorado River abstention doctrine, cementing state courts as the primary venue for general stream adjudications that include federal and Indian reserved water rights. The Court subordinated the federal-forum access granted to tribes under 28 U.S.C. § 1362 to the broader policy of unified water management embodied in the McCarran Amendment. This holding forces tribes to litigate their federally-created rights in state forums they often perceive as less favorable, profoundly affecting tribal litigation strategy for water rights across the American West. The ruling prioritizes the 'wise judicial administration' goal of avoiding duplicative litigation over the specific jurisdictional grants designed to protect tribal sovereignty.
Unlock the full brief for Zurcher v. Stanford Daily