Arizona v. Navajo Nation

599 U.S. 555, 143 S. Ct. 1804, 216 L.E.2d 540 (2023)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Arizona v. Navajo Nation

United States Supreme Court
599 U.S. 555, 143 S. Ct. 1804, 216 L.E.2d 540 (2023)

Facts

When the United States won the Mexican-American War in 1848, it acquired what became the western part of the United States. For two decades, there were battles between the United States and the peoples now known as the Navajo Nation (Navajos) (plaintiff), who occupied a portion of the acquired territory. The conflict resulted in the execution of a peace treaty in 1868 under which the Navajos agreed not to engage in further battle and the United States agreed to establish a large reservation for the Navajos. Under the treaty, the reservation included, among other things, the right to use needed water on the reservation. The reservation was bordered by the Colorado River, the Little Colorado River, and the San Juan River. The Navajos used water from those rivers as well as water sources on the reservation to meet the reservation’s household, agricultural, industrial, and commercial needs. However, as water scarcity increased in the western United States, water access became an increasing concern for the Navajos. The Navajos eventually sued the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other government parties (collectively, the government) (defendants) for breach of trust, alleging that the government was failing to fully satisfy its treaty obligations. The Navajos did not claim that the government had interfered with their water usage. Instead, they argued that the treaty imposed an obligation on the government to take affirmative steps to secure sufficient water for the Navajo reservation, such as by assessing the reservation’s water needs, developing a plan to secure water, and potentially building infrastructure to bring water onto the reservation. The government argued that the treaty did not impose such an obligation. The district court held in the government’s favor, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. The government appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kavanaugh, J.)

Concurrence (Thomas, J.)

Dissent (Gorsuch, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership