trust breach

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Loses Trial in Federal Trust Breach Action Despite Federal Inaction that “dilutes a unique community and leading it one step closer towards decay”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the updated materials in Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

134-2 Cheyenne River Pre-Trial Memorandum.pdfDownload
138 US Pre-Trial Memorandum.pdfDownload
183 CFC Opinion.pdfDownload

Prior post here.

This paragraph is brutal:

The evidence presented to the Court at trial was “both overwhelming and extremely underwhelming.” (Tr. Court, 1426:20). Witness testimony was poignant at times, on one occasion moving some in the courtroom audience to tears. Ultimately, however, the Tribe failed to shoulder its burden of proof; and despite the Court’s serious misgivings about the treatment of the Tribe, the Tribe did not show that the United States’ failure to repair the crumbling Building violated trust obligations or constituted to a taking. Even if the Tribe met the elements of a breach of trust or takings claim, its proof of damages was entirely unconvincing, dependent on construction costs in the city limits of Chicago and rental values derived from cursory internet searches. Accordingly, the United States is entitled to judgment.

CFC Allows Colville Trust Breach over Wildfires to Proceed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far in Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

1 Complaint.pdfDownload
7 Motion to Dismiss.pdfDownload
11 Response.pdfDownload
14 Reply.pdfDownload
23 CFC Order.pdfDownload

CFC Allows Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Trust Breach Claim to Proceed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far in Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

13 Amended Complaint

83 US Motion for Summary J

95 CRST Response

98 Reply

112 DCT Order

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.

Jemez Pueblo Sues United States over the Post Office

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Pueblo of Jemez v. United States (D.N.M.):

1 Complaint.pdfDownload
NOT the post office.
Also NOT the post office, but down the road over in Jemez Springs. Maybe this is where the Indian affairs people went for fun.

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.