Supreme Court of the United States

Arizona v. California

June 19, 2000530 U.S. 392

Summary

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg joined by Justices Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer, rejected both asserted grounds for precluding the Quechan Tribe’s additional water-rights claims and remanded those claims to the Special Master for determination on the merits. The State parties forfeited their defense based on Arizona I by failing to raise it timely, and the Tribe’s 1983 Claims Court settlement did not conclusively determine ownership of the disputed lands. The Court also approved settlements concerning the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Indian Reservations and invited objections to a proposed supplemental decree. Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices O’Connor and Thomas, concurred in approving the settlements but dissented from allowing the Quechan claims to proceed; he would have considered the preclusion defense timely and held the claims barred.

Holding

  • Timeliness of the preclusion defense based on Arizona I.. The State parties forfeited their preclusion defense by failing to raise it despite ample earlier opportunity, so Arizona I did not foreclose the disputed-boundary water-rights claims in these proceedings.
  • Effect of the 1978 Secretarial Order on otherwise applicable preclusion principles.. The Secretarial Order was not a later, unknown circumstance sufficient to overcome otherwise applicable preclusion principles.
  • Preclusive effect of the 1983 Claims Court settlement.. The consent judgment did not preclude the additional water-rights claims or establish that the Tribe had relinquished title to the disputed lands.
  • Approval of the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Reservation settlements.. The proposed settlements were approved, subject to further proceedings concerning the proposed supplemental decree.

Docket 8 ORIG

Cited authorities

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF