Here is “As drought persists in the west, justices to consider Navajo Nation’s rights to Colorado River.”
Background materials on the case are here.

Arizona v. Navajo will be argued on March 20, 2023.
LDF v. Coughlin will be argued on April 24, 2023.

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

Here:

Here was yesterday’s order.
Prior post here.

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

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.
Here is the petition in Arizona v. Navajo Nation:
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 *ii manage the mainstream of the LBCR so as not to interfere with that plan, infringe upon this Court’s retained 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.

You must be logged in to post a comment.