Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1484_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 31

10 

ARIZONA v. NAVAJO NATION 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

“ ‘undertaken representation of the interests of several In-
dian [T]ribes,’ ” so there was no need for the Court to hear
from  the  Navajo.  Id.,  at  107.  In  any  event,  the  United 
States assured the Court, it would continue to apply “ ‘con-
siderations of justice’ ” in its dealings with the Tribe.  Ibid. 
The government conceded, however, “no evidence had been 
submitted on behalf of the Navajo Nation for uses from the
mainstream.”  Ibid.  And  it  conceded  that  “such  evidence 
would have had to be  submitted in order for  the Court to 
consider the issue of the Navajo Nation’s rights to the main-
stream.”  Ibid.  As  with  their  previous  attempts  to  make 
their voices heard in the litigation, the Navajo’s motion to
intervene was denied.  Id., at 108. 

In 1964, the litigation Arizona initiated more than a dec-
ade earlier culminated in a decree.  See Arizona v. Califor-
nia, 376 U. S. 340.  It allocated the Lower Basin Colorado 
River  mainstream  among  various  parties—including  five
other Tribes whose interests the United States did assert. 
See id., at 344–345.  The decree also permitted the federal
government to release water pursuant to certain “valid con-
tracts”  and  applicable  federal  laws.    Id.,  at  343;  Brief  for 
Federal Parties 7.  But the Tribe’s rights remained in limbo. 
The  United  States  never  asserted  any  rights  on  the  Nav-
ajo’s behalf; the Navajo never received an opportunity to as-
sert them for themselves.  Since 1964, the decree governing
the Lower Basin has been modified at various points.  See, 
e.g., Arizona v. California, 547 U. S. 150 (2006); Arizona v. 
California,  531  U. S.  1  (2000);  Arizona  v.  California,  466 
U. S. 144 (1984).  But it has never been modified to address 
the Navajo.

In the intervening years, the Navajo have asked the fed-
eral government—repeatedly—to assess their rights in the 
mainstream of the Colorado.  App. 109.  In response to those 
inquiries, the Tribe received a letter from the Department 
of the Interior indicating that the Department still had not 
made “any decisions” about what water rights, if any, the