Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Ariz.):
This case is on remand after the parties agreed to the vacature of the district court’s dismissal of the suit.
Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Ariz.):
This case is on remand after the parties agreed to the vacature of the district court’s dismissal of the suit.
Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):
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.
Here are the en banc stage materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior:
Amended Order + Denial of En Banc Petition
Water District En Banc Petition
Panel stage materials here.
Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):
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.
Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Ariz.):
You must be logged in to post a comment.