Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1484_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 30

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

9 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

Colorado River waters.”  Id., at 560. 

Reality never quite caught up to the law’s ambitions.  Af-
ter an agreement among the States failed to emerge and the 
Secretary began issuing contracts to various users, Arizona 
in 1952 brought an original action in this Court against Cal-
ifornia seeking a declaration of its water rights in the Lower 
Basin.  Id.,  at  550–551.  Several  other  States  intervened. 
Ibid.  So did the United States.  Ibid.  In doing so, the fed-
eral government claimed the need to “protect federal inter-
ests, including the rights of the Navajo Nation and twenty-
four other Indian [T]ribes in the Lower Basin.”  App. 104.
As  the  litigation  unfolded,  however,  the  Navajo  began  to
worry that the United States did not have their best inter-
ests in mind.  In 1956, the Navajo Nation sought leave to 
file (along with six other Tribes) a motion seeking “to define
the scope of the representation of the [T]ribes by the United 
States” and objecting to what they considered a “lack of ef-
fective  representation  and  [a]  conflict  of  interest.”    Id.,  at 
105.  That motion was denied.  Ibid. 

Proceeding  without  the  Navajo,  this  Court  referred  the
litigation to a Special Master.  In time, the Special Master
prepared  a  report  and  recommendation  that  omitted  any 
mention of the Tribe.  Ibid.  In response, the Navajo wrote 
to the Attorney General.  They asked the United States to 
object to the Special Master’s report on their behalf.  Id., at 
105–106.  The Navajo say they never received a response. 
Id., at 106.  For its part, the United States eventually did
object—but not on the grounds the Navajo sought.  Ibid. 

Having seen enough, the Navajo in 1961 moved to inter-
vene.  Ibid.  They “argued that the United States had failed 
to vigorously assert” their interests.  Ibid.  More than that, 
the  Tribe  contended,  the  United  States  had  “ ‘abandoned 
the case so far as the adjudication of the rights of the Navajo 
Indians  [was]  concerned.’ ”    Ibid.  The  United  States  op-
posed the Tribe’s motion.  Ibid.  On its view, it had already