Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1484_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 42

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

21 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

The  Tribe’s  lawsuit  asks  for  nothing  of  the  sort.  The 
Tribe expressly disavows any suggestion that, “as a matter 
of treaty interpretation . . . the United States is legally ob-
ligated to pay for pipelines or aquifers,” for example.  Tr. of 
Oral  Arg.  78.  Instead  and  again,  the  Tribe’s  complaint 
seeks  simply  to  “compel  the  Federal  Defendants  to  deter-
mine the water required to . . . fulfill the promise[s]” made
to  them  under  the  Treaty  of  1868.    App.  86.    Only  if  the 
United States is, in fact, “interfer[ing] with [their] reserved 
water rights” in some way, ante, at 6, could the Tribe then 
ask the federal government to “devise a plan” for achieving 
compliance with its obligations, App. 86.  And, for all any-
one presently can tell, the United States may be interfering 
in just that way.  Asking the federal government to assess 
what it holds in trust and to ensure that it is not misappro-
priating water that belongs to the Tribe has nothing to do
with building pipelines or farming land. 

B 

Having  mistaken  the  nature  of  the  Navajo’s  complaint, 
the Court proceeds next to analyze it under the wrong legal
framework.    Citing  cases  like  United  States  v.  Jicarilla 
Apache Nation, 564 U. S. 162 (2011); United States v. Nav-
ajo  Nation,  537  U. S.  488  (2003)  (Navajo  I);  and  United 
States  v.  Mitchell,  445  U. S.  535  (1980)  (Mitchell  I),  the
Court tries to hammer a square peg (the Navajo’s request) 
through  a  round  hole  (our  Tucker  Acts  framework).    See 
ante, at 7–9, and n. 1.  To understand why those cases are 
inapposite, a little background is in order. 

When  an  Indian  Tribe  seeks  damages  from  the  United 
States,  it  must  usually  proceed  under  the  terms  of  the 
Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. §1491, and the Indian Tucker Act,
§1505.  Together, those provisions facilitate suits for money 
damages in the Court of Federal Claims for claims “arising
under  the  Constitution,  laws  or  treaties  of  the  United