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

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

1 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 21–1484 and 22–51 
_________________ 

21–1484 

ARIZONA, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
NAVAJO NATION, ET AL. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL., 
PETITIONERS 
v. 
NAVAJO NATION, ET AL. 

22–51 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 22, 2023] 

JUSTICE  GORSUCH,  with  whom  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR, 

JUSTICE KAGAN, and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. 

Today,  the  Court  rejects  a  request  the  Navajo  Nation 
never made.  This case is not about compelling the federal 
government  to  take  “affirmative  steps  to  secure  water  for 
the Navajos.” Ante, at 2.  Respectfully, the relief the Tribe
seeks is far more modest.  Everyone agrees the Navajo re-
ceived enforceable water rights by treaty.  Everyone agrees 
the United States holds some of those water rights in trust
on  the  Tribe’s  behalf.  And  everyone  agrees  the  extent  of 
those rights has never been assessed.  Adding those pieces
together,  the  Navajo  have  a  simple  ask:    They  want  the
United States to identify the water rights it holds for them. 
And if the United States has misappropriated the Navajo’s 
water rights, the Tribe asks it to formulate a plan to stop
doing so prospectively.  Because there is nothing remarka-
ble  about  any  of  this,  I  would  affirm  the  Ninth  Circuit’s
judgment and allow the Navajo’s case to proceed.