Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1484_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 45

24 

ARIZONA v. NAVAJO NATION 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

C 
After misreading the Navajo’s request and applying the
wrong analytical framework, the Court errs in one last way.
It reaches the wrong result even under this Court’s Tucker
Acts  framework.   The  second  step  of  the  analysis—using 
“trust principles” to sort out the damages the United States 
owes, Navajo II, 556 U. S., at 301—clearly has no purchase 
in this context.  (Another tell that the Tucker Acts frame-
work itself has no purchase.)  But what about the first step? 
Historically, this Court’s cases have distinguished between
regulatory  schemes  that  create  “bare  trusts”  (that  cannot 
sustain  actions  for  damages)  and  a  “conventional”  trust
(that  can  make  the  government  “liable  in  damages  for 
breach”  under  the  Tucker  Acts).   White  Mountain  Apache 
Tribe, 537 U. S., at 473–474; see ante, at 9.  A close look at 
those decisions suggests that, even under them, the Tribe’s 
claim should be allowed to proceed. 

Take  Mitchell  II  as  an  example.  There,  this  Court  al-
lowed a claim for money damages relating to the misman-
agement of tribal forests.  On what basis?  A patchwork of
statutes and regulations, along with some assorted repre-
sentations by the Department of the Interior.  463 U. S., at 
219–224.  In holding this showing sufficient to support an
action for money damages, this Court observed that, “where
the Federal Government takes on or has control” of prop-
erty belonging to a Tribe, the necessary “fiduciary relation-
ship  normally  exists  . . .  even  though  nothing  is  said  ex-
pressly” about “a trust or fiduciary connection.”  Id., at 225 
(internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    Further,  where  the 
federal government has “full responsibility” to manage a re-
source or “elaborate control” over that resource, the requi-
site “fiduciary relationship necessarily arises.”  Id., at 224– 
225  (emphasis  added).    Statements  by  the  United  States
“recogniz[ing]”  a  fiduciary  duty,  the  Court  explained,  can 
help confirm as much too.  Id., at 224. 

Consider White Mountain Apache Tribe as well.  There,