Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1484_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

3-year period to the Tribe does not, as the Tribe contends, mean that 
the United States has an additional duty to take affirmative steps to
secure water, but rather demonstrates that the United States and the 
Navajos knew how to impose specific affirmative duties on the United 
States  under  the  treaty.    Third,  the  Tribe  asserts  that  the  United 
States’s purported control over the reserved water rights supports the 
view that the United States owes trust duties to the Navajos.  But the 
“Federal Government’s liability” on a breach-of-trust claim “cannot be 
premised on control alone.”  United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U. S. 
287, 301.  Finally, the text of the treaty and records of treaty negotia-
tions  do  not  support  the  claim  that  in  1868  the  Navajos  would  have
understood  the  treaty  to  mean  that  the  United  States  must  take  af-
firmative steps to secure water for the Tribe.  

26 F. 4th 794, reversed. 

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and BARRETT, JJ., joined.  THOMAS, J., filed a 
concurring opinion.  GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SO-
TOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.