Arizona v. Navajo Nation (SCOTUS 2023)

Summary

The Court held that the 1868 treaty reserved water necessary to accomplish the Navajo Reservation's purpose but imposed no affirmative duty on the United States to assess the Tribe's water needs, provide an accounting, or develop a plan to secure water. Justice Kavanaugh's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett, applied the requirement that enforceable federal trust duties derive from treaty, statutory, or regulatory language, including when a tribe seeks equitable relief. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit. Justice Thomas concurred separately to question the historical and constitutional foundations of a general Indian trust relationship and its influence on other Indian-law doctrines. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, dissented, viewing the requested relief as an accounting of existing trust assets rather than a demand for new infrastructure. He would have affirmed and allowed the Tribe's claim to proceed.

Holding

Whether the Navajo treaties impose an affirmative federal duty to assess and secure water for the Tribe.. The 1868 treaty reserves necessary water but does not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure it, including determining water needs, providing an accounting, or developing a plan. The 1849 treaty likewise imposes no such obligation.

Whether the positive-law framework for federal Indian trust obligations applies to equitable claims.. The requirement to identify treaty, statutory, or regulatory language establishing federal trust responsibilities applies to claims for equitable relief as well as claims for damages.

Whether a potential conflict with the Court's 2006 Colorado River decree concerns subject-matter jurisdiction.. Whether particular remedies would violate the substance of the 2006 decree is a merits question, not a question of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities