Arizona v. Navajo Nation

ABA SEER “Community Conversation” re: Arizona v. Navajo Nation Supreme Court Argument

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Title: Arizona v. Navajo Nation, U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument Debrief

Date/Time: April 20, 2023, 12–1 pm Mountain Time.

Registration link: https://americanbar.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJIqf-uprDgtHNJdop7wBRttqIpyu3j9-Xw2#/registration

Description: Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in Arizona v. Navajo Nation, a case that pertains to the Navajo Nation’s claims to water rights in the mainstem of the Colorado River and the United States’ trust obligation to assess and assert those rights under the Court’s more-than-century-old Winters doctrine. Although this current case ostensibly relates to one Tribe’s rights to one specific water source, the forthcoming Supreme Court ruling could have ripple effects for Native Nations across the United States as they seek to assert, quantify, and settle their water rights in ongoing adjudications nationwide. Join law professors Heather Whiteman Runs Him (University of Arizona), Derrick Beetso (Arizona State University), and Heather Tanana (University of Utah) for a discussion about the Arizona v. Navajo Nation oral arguments, the potentially wide-ranging implications of the case, and their work on the amicus briefs they coauthored and submitted to the Court, during this free virtual event sponsored by the ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources’ (SEER) Native American Resources Committee and Water Resources Committee.

Lunch in Indian Country CLE: Supreme Court Update on Indian Law [with Fletcher]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Supreme Court Update on Indian Law

Co-Sponsored by the State Bar of Arizona and the State Bar’s Indian Law Section

January 18, 2023, 12:00-1:00 MST

1.0 Total CLE Unit

Join Professor Matthew Fletcher as he reviews the most recent Supreme Court decisions affecting Indian Country.

Faculty:

Matthew Fletcher, Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law, Michigan Law

 
Chairpersons:
Doreen McPaul, President, Tribal In-House Counsel Association
Virjinya Torrez, Assistant Attorney General, Pascua Yaqui Tribe

Register: https://azbar.inreachce.com/Details/Information/1661e72a-831b-45a2-ad84-a06a235557ee

Merits Stage Briefs in Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Dept. of the Interior v. Navajo Nation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

All this water is Navajo.
Interior Brief.pdfDownload
Arizona Merits Brief.pdfDownload
Colorado Merits Brief.pdfDownload
Western Water Users Amicus.pdfDownload

SCTOUS Grants United States and Arizona Petitions in Navajo Water Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here was yesterday’s order.

Prior post here.

Thinking if SCOTUS had some good frybread, they’d let Indian country have the nice things we deserve, like an enforceable duty of protection.

Dept. of Justice [almost certainly over Interior’s objections] and Arizona File Cert Petitions in Navajo Nation Water Rights Trust Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Dept. of the Interior v. Navajo Nation:

US Cert Petition.pdfDownload

Question presented:

Whether the federal government owes the Navajo Nation an affirmative, judicially enforceable fiduciary duty to assess and address the Navajo Nation’s need for water from particular sources, in the absence of any substantive source of law that expressly establishes such a duty.

Here is the petition and the partial acquiescence by Justice in Arizona v. Navajo Nation:

Arizona v. Navajo Nation Cert Petition.pdfDownload
US Response — Arizona v. Navajo Nation.pdfDownload

Questions presented:

I. Does the Ninth Circuit Opinion, allowing the Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the Secretary to develop a plan to meet the Nation’s water needs and manage the mainstream of the LBCR so as not to in- terfere with that plan, infringe upon this Court’s re- tained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the LBCR mainstream in Arizona v. California?
II. Can the Nation state a cognizable claim for breach of trust consistent with this Court’s holding in Jicarilla based solely on unquantified implied rights to water under the Winters Doctrine?

Lower court materials here.