Arizona v. Navajo Nation

Last updated

Arizona v. Navajo Nation
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 20, 2023
Decided June 22, 2023
Full case nameArizona, et al. v. Navajo Nation, et al.
Department of the Interior, et al. v. Navajo Nation, et al.
Docket nos. 21-1484
22-51
Citations599 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Holding
The 1868 treaty establishing the Navajo Reservation reserved necessary water to accomplish the purpose of the Navajo Reservation but did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityKavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Barrett
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentGorsuch, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson
Laws applied
Treaty of Bosque Redondo

Arizona v. Navajo Nation, 599 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case which determined that the Treaty of Bosque Redondo did not require the U.S. Government to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajo Nation.

Contents

Background

Following conflicts between the Navajo and U.S. forces, roughly eight to ten thousand Navajo were forced to relocate to the Bosque Redondo Reservation in what became known as "The Long Walk". [1] :38 [2] :364 The Reservation land provided by the U.S. Government and established to be a "permanent home" saw itself to be very inhospitable to the native populace whose agricultural possibilities were heavily limited by the land's poor soil quality, resulting in a sharp decline in the total Navajo population of the new residents. [3] [4] To aid in both the assimilation of the native peoples and to assist in the ability of the Navajo to adapt to their new home, the Treaty of Bosque Redondo was provided which, in exchange for the renouncement of all claims outside the reservation and federal education of native children, saw federal assistance and aid to allow for agricultural cultivation alongside monetary compensation for labor.

Later Supreme Court cases such as Winters v. United States would go on to assert that treaties establishing reservations must be construed with enough water to establish a homeland. Water claims would further be noted upon in United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation which stated that Tribal Nations suing the Federal Government for a breach of trust must point to explicit language within their treaty asserting such a breach. Following historic water crises in the Southwest United States, The Navajo Nation looked towards the water rights principles of Winters as a way to mitigate their water scarcity. The Nation would go on to argue that given the reservation was intended to be a "permanent home" for the Navajo people the Federal Government is compelled to take "affirmative steps" to secure needed water for the tribe in terms of assessing tribal water needs, developing plans to secure water, and potentially constructing water infrastructure. [5] The states of Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada intervened against the Navajo Nation in their suit against the U.S. Government in order to protect their State interests over the Colorado River. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona initially dismissed the Navajo Tribe's complaint, however, upon appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the lower court's decision was reversed, ultimately siding in favor of the Navajo Nation. [6]

Supreme Court

Oral arguments were heard on March 20, 2023, with the States represented by Rita P. Maguire. The Federal Government argued alongside the state interests with Assistant to the Solicitor General Frederick Liu framing the issue as a matter of property rights; arguing that the treaty establishing the Navajo Reservation established rights to the land's resources with each property right acting as a “stick in the bundle of property rights that make up a reservation”. In addition, he also emphasized that the treaty must explicitly acknowledge the Federal Governments place to do more than recognize water rights if it wishes for the Federal Government to intervene in providing water guarantees. [7] Shay Dvoretzky argued for the Navajo Nation asserting that the context of the treaty established a relationship between the tribe and Government as a 'duty of protection' within the general trust relationship while emphasizing the canons of construing Indian treaties, which requires the judiciary to interpret treaty language as tribal treaty negotiators would have understood it. [8]

Majority

The 5-4 majority opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. Siding in favor of the states, Justice Kavanaugh argued that the treaties were stipulations of property rights rather than obligations of the Federal Government to fulfill any proposed purposes of said treaty. Additionally, Kavanaugh noted that the U.S. Government would owe no obligation to assist in these requests by the Tribes unless the tribal requests are explicitly stated within the treaty itself. [9]

Concurrence

Justice Clarence Thomas, joining the majority opinion in full, offered a separate concurrence in which he suggested revisiting prior cases recognizing the canons of construction of Indian treaties and stating that prior court cases had "blurred the lines between the political branches’ general moral obligations to Indians". [10] [11]

Dissent

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the dissenting opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The opinion highlighted the historical context of the forced relocation of the Navajo people alongside the cannons of construction stating how the 1868 treaty would ultimately allow for adequate resources for them to build a homeland. Additionally, the opinion stipulated that the Government acting out affirmative steps to secure water for the Nation would be a fulfillment of the Treaty's purpose while highlighting the 'fiduciary' duty of the Government in doing so. [12] To highlight this perceived lack of Governmental discretion, Gorsuch referred to U.S. refusal to fulfill the Treaty's promises as having been around since 'Elvis was still making his rounds on The Ed Sullivan Show' while offering suggestions on how the Navajo Nation might be able to litigate future treaty rights over waters of the Colorado River. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Navajo Nation</span> Federally recognized tribe within the Southwest United States

The Navajo Nation, also known as Navajoland, is a Native American reservation of Navajo people in the United States. It occupies portions of northeastern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, and southeastern Utah. The seat of government is located in Window Rock, Arizona.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal sovereignty in the United States</span> Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of Indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Long Walk of the Navajo</span> 1864 act of ethnic cleansing in the US

The Long Walk of the Navajo, also called the Long Walk to Bosque Redondo, was the 1864 deportation and ethnic cleansing of the Navajo people by the United States federal government. Navajos were forced to walk from their land in western New Mexico Territory to Bosque Redondo in eastern New Mexico. Some 53 different forced marches occurred between August 1864 and the end of 1866. Some anthropologists claim that the "collective trauma of the Long Walk...is critical to contemporary Navajos' sense of identity as a people".

Indigenous peoples of Arizona are the Native American people who currently live or have historically lived in what is now the state of Arizona. There are 22 federally recognized tribes in Arizona, including 17 with reservations that lie entirely within its borders. Reservations make up over a quarter of the state's land area. Arizona has the third largest Native American population of any U.S. state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian reservation</span> Land managed by Native American nations under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs

An American Indian reservation is an area of land held and governed by a U.S. federal government-recognized Native American tribal nation, whose government is autonomous, subject to regulations passed by the United States Congress and administered by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, and not to the U.S. state government in which it is located. Some of the country's 574 federally recognized tribes govern more than one of the 326 Indian reservations in the United States, while some share reservations, and others have no reservation at all. Historical piecemeal land allocations under the Dawes Act facilitated sales to non–Native Americans, resulting in some reservations becoming severely fragmented, with pieces of tribal and privately held land being treated as separate enclaves. This jumble of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political, and legal difficulties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Manuelito</span> Navajo leader (1818–1893)

Chief Manuelito or Hastiin Chʼil Haajiní (1818–1893) was one of the principal headmen of the Diné people before, during and after the Long Walk Period. Manuelito is the diminutive form of the name Manuel, the Iberian variant of the name Immanuel; Manuelito translates to Little Immanuel. He was born to the Bit'ahnii or ″Folded Arms People Clan″, near the Bears Ears in southeastern Utah about 1818. As many Navajo, he was known by different names depending upon context. He was Ashkii Diyinii, Dahaana Baadaané, Hastiin Ch'ilhaajinii and as Nabááh Jiłtʼaa to other Diné, and non-Navajo nicknamed him "Bullet Hole".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roberts Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court since 2005

The Roberts Court is the time since 2005 during which the Supreme Court of the United States has been led by John Roberts as Chief Justice. Roberts succeeded William Rehnquist as Chief Justice after Rehnquist's death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neil Gorsuch</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2017 (born 1967)

Neil McGill Gorsuch is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President Donald Trump on January 31, 2017, and has served since April 10, 2017.

Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), was a United States Supreme Court case clarifying water rights of American Indian reservations. This doctrine was meant to clearly define the water rights of indigenous people in cases where the rights were not clear. The case was first argued on October 24, 1907, and a decision was reached January 6, 1908. This case set the standards for the United States government to acknowledge the vitality of indigenous water rights, and how rights to the water relate to the continuing survival and self-sufficiency of indigenous people.

Kerr-McGee v. Navajo Tribe, 471 U.S. 195 (1985), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Indian tribe is not required to obtain the approval of the Secretary of the Interior in order to impose taxes on non-tribal persons or entities doing business on a reservation.

Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Arizona does not have jurisdiction to try a civil case between a non-Indian doing business on a reservation with tribal members who reside on the reservation, the proper forum for such cases being the tribal court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaty of Bosque Redondo</span> 1868 US treaty ending the Navajo Wars

The Treaty of Bosque Redondo also the Navajo Treaty of 1868 or Treaty of Fort Sumner, Navajo Naal Tsoos Sani or Naaltsoos Sání) was an agreement between the Navajo and the US Federal Government signed on June 1, 1868. It ended the Navajo Wars and allowed for the return of those held in internment camps at Fort Sumner following the Long Walk of 1864. The treaty effectively established the Navajo as a sovereign nation.

Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a Supreme Court of the United States case of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. After holding the case from the 2018 term, the case was decided on July 9, 2020, in a per curiam decision following McGirt v. Oklahoma that, for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, the reservations were never disestablished and remain Native American country.

Washington State Dep't of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855 preempts the state law which the State purported to be able to tax fuel purchased by a tribal corporation for sale to tribal members. This was a 5-4 plurality decision, with Justice Breyer's opinion being joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Ginsburg, penned a concurring opinion. There were dissenting opinions by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh.

Herrera v. Wyoming, No. 17-532, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Wyoming's statehood did not void the Crow Tribe's right to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States" under an 1868 treaty, and that the Bighorn National Forest did not automatically become "occupied" when the forest was created.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that the domain reserved for the Muscogee Nation by Congress in the 19th century has never been disestablished and constitutes Indian country for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, meaning that the State of Oklahoma has no right to prosecute American Indians for crimes allegedly committed therein. After McGirt, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals applied the McGirt rationale in six similar cases, finding that Congress established reservations within the final incarnation of the Indian Territory for eight other Indigenous nations which have not been disestablished. As a result, almost the entirety of the eastern half of what is now the State of Oklahoma remains Indian country, meaning that criminal prosecutions of Native Americans for offenses therein falls outside the jurisdiction of Oklahoma’s court system. In these cases, jurisdiction properly vests within the Indigenous judicial systems and the federal district courts under the Major Crimes Act.

Haaland v. Brackeen was a Supreme Court of the United States case brought by the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Indiana, and individual plaintiffs, that sought to declare the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) unconstitutional. In addition to Haaland v. Brackeen, three additional cases were consolidated to be heard at the same time: Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen, Texas v. Haaland, and Brackeen v. Haaland.

Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the classification of Alaska Native corporations (ANCs) for purposes of receiving funds set-aside for tribal governments under the CARES Act. In a 6–3 decision issued in June 2021, the Court ruled that ANCs were considered to be "Indian tribes" and were eligible to receive the set-aside funds.

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to McGirt v. Oklahoma, decided in 2020. In McGirt, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Congress never properly disestablished the Indian reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma when granting its statehood, and thus almost half the state was still considered to be Native American land. As a result of McGirt, crimes under the Major Crimes Act by Native Americans in the reservations are treated as federal crimes rather than state crimes.

Water rights for the Navajo Nation have been a source of environmental conflict for decades, as Navajo lands have provided energy and water for residents of neighboring states while many of the Navajo do not have electricity or running water in their homes. Beginning in the 1960s, coal mining by Peabody coal at Black Mesa withdrew more than 3 million gallons of water/day from the Navajo aquifer, reducing the number of springs on the reservation. The Navajo Generating Station also consumed about 11 billion gallons of water per year to provide power for the Central Arizona Project that pumps water from Lake Havasu into Arizona.

References

  1. Fredriksen, John C. (2001). America's Military Adversaries: From Colonial Times to the Present. ABC-CLIO. ISBN   978-1-57607-603-3.
  2. Fixico, Donald L. (May 31, 2018). Indian Treaties in the United States: A Encyclopedia and Documents Collection. ABC-CLIO. ISBN   978-1-4408-6048-5.
  3. Brewer-Wallin, Emma (2018). We are lonesome for our land": The Settler Colonialist Use of Exodus in the Diné Long Walk (Thesis). Wellesley College Digital Scholarship and Archive: Honors Thesis Collection. Retrieved June 27, 2018.
  4. Reed, Betsy (June 22, 2023). "Supreme court rules against Navajo nation in Colorado River water dispute". The Guardian .
  5. "The Supreme Court and Native law: A conundrum". Santa Fe New Mexican . June 25, 2023.
  6. "ARIZONA v. NAVAJO NATION". June 22, 2023.
  7. Fletcher, Matthew (March 21, 2023). "Justices appear divided over Navajo Nation's water rights". SCOTUSblog .
  8. "Arizona v. Navajo Nation". Oyez . March 20, 2023.
  9. Zasloff, Jonathan (June 24, 2023). "Navajo Nation Just Got Hosed by the Supreme Court—Again". The Daily Beast .
  10. Fletcher, Matthew (June 22, 2023). "Supreme Court rules 5-4 against Navajo Nation in water rights dispute". SCOTUSblog .
  11. Blackman, Josh (June 23, 2023). "Making Sense of Arizona v. Navajo Nation". Reason .
  12. Sheth, Sonam (June 22, 2023). "In a scathing dissent, Neil Gorsuch compared the Navajo Nation's plight to the experience of 'any American who has spent time at the Department of Motor Vehicles'". Business Insider .
  13. "ARIZONA ET AL. v. NAVAJO NATION ET AL" (PDF). June 22, 2023.