Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1484_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 47

26 

ARIZONA v. NAVAJO NATION 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

this day, the United States has never denied that the Nav-
ajo may have water rights in the mainstream of the Colo-
rado River (and perhaps elsewhere) that it holds in trust for 
the  Tribe.    Instead,  the  government’s  constant  refrain  is
that the Navajo can have all they ask for; they just need to
go somewhere else and do something else first. 

The Navajo have tried it all.  They have written federal 
officials.  They have moved this Court to clarify the United 
States’ responsibilities when representing them.  They have
sought to intervene directly in water-related litigation.  And 
when all of those efforts were rebuffed, they brought a claim 
seeking  to  compel  the  United  States  to  make  good  on  its 
treaty obligations by providing an accounting of what water 
rights it holds on their behalf.  At each turn, they have re-
ceived  the  same  answer:  “Try  again.”    When  this  routine 
first began in earnest, Elvis was still making his rounds on 
The Ed Sullivan Show. 

If there is any silver lining here it may be this.  While the 
Court finds the present complaint lacking because it under-
stands it as seeking “affirmative steps,” the Court does not 
pass  on  other  potential  pleadings  the  Tribe  might  offer,
such as those alleging direct interference with their water 
rights.  Importantly, too, the Court recognizes that the Nav-
ajo “may be able to assert the interests they claim in water
rights litigation, including by seeking to intervene in cases 
that affect their claimed interests.”  Ante, at 12.  After to-
day,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  this  Court  (or  any  court)  could 
ever again fairly deny a request from the Navajo to inter-
vene  in  litigation  over  the  Colorado  River  or  other  water
sources to which they might have a claim.  Principles of es-
toppel, if nothing else, may have something to say about the
United States’ ability to oppose requests like that moving 
forward.  Cf. United States v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 11, 73– 
74, n. 97 (1969).  All of which leaves the Navajo in a familiar 
spot.  As they did at Bosque Redondo, they must again fight 
for themselves to secure their homeland and all that must