Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior

Arizona Federal Court Allows Navajo Suit against Interior over Hopi Trust Land Acquisition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Ariz.):

31 First Amended Complaint

35 Motion to Dismiss

38 Opposition

41 Reply

42-dct-orderDownload

This case is on remand after the parties agreed to the vacature of the district court’s dismissal of the suit.

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.

States’ Cert Petition in Navajo Nation Water Rights Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Arizona v. Navajo Nation:

arizona-v.-navajo-cert-petitionDownload

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.

Ninth Circuit Denies Federal Government’s En Banc Petition in Navajo Water Rights Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the en banc stage materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior:

Amended Order + Denial of En Banc Petition

US En Banc Petition

Water District En Banc Petition

Navajo Response

Panel stage materials here.

Artwork on water towers along a remote Arizona road leading to Monument Valley Navajo Tribal Park, a red-sand desert region on the Arizona-Utah border known for the towering sandstone buttes [LOC]

Ninth Circuit Restores Navajo Nation’s Water Rights Trust Breach Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior. Briefs here.

An excerpt:

Moreover, neither Morongo nor Gros Ventre nor Jicarilla involved claims to vindicate Winters rights, which provide the foundation of the Nation’s claim here. Unlike the plaintiffs in those cases, the Nation, in pointing to its reserved water rights, has identified specific treaty, statutory, and regulatory provisions that impose fiduciary obligations on Federal Appellees—namely, those provisions of the Nation’s various treaties and related statutes and executive orders that establish the Navajo Reservation and, under the long-established Winters doctrine, give rise to implied water rights to make the reservation viable.

                      *. *  *

We hold in particular that, under Winters, Federal Appellees have a duty to protect the Nation’s water supply that arises, in part, from specific provisions in the 1868 Treaty that contemplated farming by the members of the Reservation.