Document: 531 U.S. 1121 S.Ct. 292148 L.Ed.2d 1 STATE OF ARIZONA, COMPLAINANTv.STATE CALIFORNIA et al. BILL COMPLAINT No. 8 Orig. SUPREME COURT THE UNITED STATES Argued April 25, 2000 Decided June 19, Supplemental Decree October 10, ON EXCEPTIONS TO REPORT SPECIAL MASTER Syllabus This litigation began in 1952 when Arizona invoked this Court's original jurisdiction to settle a dispute with California over the extent of each State's right use water from Colorado River system. The United States intervened, seeking rights on behalf of, among others, five Indian reservations, including Fort Yuma (Quechan) Reservation, and Mojave Reservation. first round culminated v. California, 373 546 (Arizona I), which Court held that had reserved for id., at 565, 599_601; those must be considered present perfected given priority because they were effective as time reservation was created, 600; should based amount reservation's practicably irrigable acreage determined by Special Master, ibid. In its 1964 decree, specified quantities priorities entitlements parties Tribes, 376 340, but Reservations would subject appropriate adjustment future agreement or decree event respective reservations' disputed boundaries finally determined, 345. 1979 supplemental again deferred resolution boundary disputes allied claims. 439 419, 421 (per curiam). 460 605 II), concluded, other things, various administrative actions taken Secretary Interior, his 1978 order recognizing entitlement Quechan Tribe (Tribe) lands Reservation did not constitute final determinations purposes decree. Id., 636_638. also II certain within undisputed boundaries, sought I-the so-called "omitted lands"-were entitled under res judicata principles. 626. 1984 declared all reservations adjustments if determined. 466 144, 145. 1987, Ninth Circuit dismissed, grounds States' sovereign immunity, suit state agencies could have boundaries. affirmed Circuit's judgment an equally divided vote. phase concerns claims Tribe's increased These rest contention encompasses some 25,000 acres attributed earlier stages litigation. land question purportedly ceded 1893 Agreement Tribe. 1936, Department Interior's Solicitor Margold issued opinion stating that, Agreement, unconditionally lands. Opinion remained Federal Government's position 42 years. 1946, Congress enacted Claims Commission Act, establishing tribunal power decide tribes' against Government. brought before action, has come known Docket 320, challenging two mutually exclusive grounds: (1) it void, case owed damages essentially trespass, (2) constituted uncompensated taking tribal 1976, transferred 320 Claims. meantime, asked Interior reconsider Opinion. Ultimately, Secretarial Order, changed confirmed most A few months after decided Order determination entered into settlement approved judgment. Under settlement, agreed pay $15 million full satisfaction claims, further assert 1989, granted motion Arizona, municipal districts (State parties) reopen determine whether Yuma, River, claim additional and, so, rights. State here are precluded I consent 320. Master prepared report recommending reject ground preclusion accept second. filed exceptions Master's recommendation, recommended approval parties' proposed settlements Reservations, submitted effectuate accords. Held: 1. view failure raise argument litigation, despite ample opportunity cause do foreclosed I. According parties, finality rationale employed dismissing lands" II, U.S., 620_621, 626_627, raised I, deliberately so. rejecting argument, pointed out Government such because, time, bound follow Opinion, no concluded overruled recognized beneficial ownership lands, circumstance 1964, one warranted exception application doctrine. so concluding, relied improper ground: does qualify previously unknown can overcome otherwise applicable That change underlying facts dispute; simply embodied party's import unchanged facts. However, agrees defense is inadmissible. response granting 1982 briefed argued. Unaccountably, their plea initiated current proceedings. While rules strictly context single ongoing principles upon inform decision. 619. Those rank affirmative ordinarily lost timely raised. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(c). disapproves notion party may wake up effectively years long (though fault anyone else) dark until late awakening. Nothing supports assertion expressly possibility might precluded. 638, distinguished. Of large significance, decrees anticipated issues "finally determined" forum, merits. themselves stipulated terms appear litigated proceedings understanding resolved merits, see, e.g., 634. Finally, rejects now sua sponte. special circumstances judicial initiative here. Sioux Nation, 448 371, 432 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). Pp. 11_17. 2. contrary. He extinguished title cannot seek purported standard doctrine, recommendation sustained. As between States, indeed had, intended have, claim-preclusive effect. But lack issue-preclusive differentiation grounded basic general rule issue attaches only actually valid International Building Co., 345 502, 505_506. common-law apply They maintain Act created regime statutory preclusion. need judgments distinctive bar tribe asserting even discrete third 1983 plainly Not but, notably, proceeded alternative theories recovery, trespass. embraced election theory other. invitation look behind presettlement stipulations memoranda demonstrating shared view, belong Because ambiguous too opaque serve foundation 17_22. 3. accepts recommendations approves respecting Reservations. 22_23. Exception overruled; Exceptions sustained; approve adopted, directed submit any objections decree; Outstanding associated remanded. Ginsburg, delivered Court, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. concurring part dissenting part, O'Connor Thomas, Justice Ginsburg Court. latest chapter long-litigated original-jurisdiction case, River. decision, we resolve threshold regarding these rights: Are prior decision (1963) 1983? We both remand consideration appurtenant 2 * our Nevada rights, Utah New Mexico joined defendants. intervened federal establishments, reservations: Chemehuevi Cocopah appointed Simon Rifkind Master. 3 apportionment governed Boulder Canyon Project 1928, 43 U.S.C. § 617 seq., contracts pursuant Act. doctrine Winters 207 564 (1908). 599_601. Tribes' 600. sustained findings relevant reservation. Ibid. incorporated March 9, Tribes. 340. rejected premature, however, Rifkind's Reservations; ordered, instead, "shall determined." 4 1978, jointly moved enter identifying mainstream dates. Tribes then motions intervene, ultimately moving reservations. Again, set dates added (including here) continue Senior Judge Elbert P. Tuttle referred him intervene pending matters. 5 permitted concluding "final determinations" allocating (Those included discussed greater detail infra, Reservation.) lands"-had fact been thus water. On grounds, award 6 (1983) Tuttle's recommendations. Secretary's ruled, agencies, private users obtain review determinations. 636_637. regard, noted action District Southern decisions, dismiss immunity. "There will enough," stated, "if dismissal overturned appellate review, nevertheless open Court." 638. barred omitted presentation leading I; "principles judicata," said, "advise reopening calculation acreage." 1984, another 7 district court participation eight parties: Metropolitan Water Coachella Valley District, Quechan, Mojave, immunity defense; matter first, voided Dist. S. Cal. 628 F. Supp. 1018 (SD 1986). Appeals Circuit, accepted reversed remanded instructions entire case. Specifically, Quiet Title 28 2409a preserved suits "to trust restricted lands," §2409a(a), therefore blocked recourse agencies. 830 F.2d 139 (1987). certiorari 490 920 (1989) dispelled expectation determination" occur forum. asking Neither nor objected motion. 493 886 (1989). After death 1990 Robert McKay, Frank J. McGarr (McGarr Report), requires discussion events specific turn events. 9 us roots 1884 Executive signed President Chester A. Arthur, designating approximately 72 square miles along (Reservation) benefit Tribe, traditionally engaged farming, offered cede portion exchange allotments irrigated individual Indians. 1893, (1893 Agreement), ratified 1894. provided cession 25,000-acre tract Language agreement, read condition performance obligations, construction three irrigation canal, allotment Indians, sale revenues canal construction, opening public domain. 10 Doubts about validity effect arose early 1935. year All-American Canal, prompted interstate see 554_555, sparked controversy concerning When Bureau Reclamation route through Department's Office argued compensation right-of-way. Solicitor, Nathan Margold. (Margold Opinion) States. Dept. Opinions Relating Affairs 596, 600 (No. M_28198, Jan. 8, 1936). 11 60 Stat. 1049, 25 70 seq. (1976 ed.), Article tribes States.1 generally Dann, 470 39 (1985). 1951, Agreement. principally relief. First, alleged obtained fraud, coercion, and/or inadequate consideration, rendering "wholly nugatory." Petition Loss (Ind. Cl. Comm'n.), ¶¶15_16, reprinted Brief Support Exception, pp. 11a_27a. At very least, contended failed perform obligations enumerated void. ¶31. either event, claimed continuing Alternatively, contractually appropriation unconscionable violation standards fair honorable dealing, §§2(3)_(5) authorized recovery. ¶¶19, 22, 25. vested unconditional taking. During more than quarter-century vacillated relief, sometimes emphasizing 26 Ind. Comm'n. 15 (1971), 29a_34a. 12 conducted trial liability, stayed 1970 legislation restored enacted, vacated stay. 13 1936 1977, Scott Austin accord opinion, unconditional. M_36886 (Jan. 18, 1977), 84 D. (1977) (Austin Opinion). It soon became clear interested Members Congress, provoked Department, Carter, revisited course. without notice Leo Krulitz conditional conditions met "[t]itle property Tribe." M_36908 (Dec. 20, 1978), 86 3, 22 (1979) (Krulitz December adopting confirming express acquired conveyed parties. 14 caused still amounted admission ineffective transfer enjoyed longer opposed trespass file affected basis intervention similar, albeit larger, claim. 632_633. August 1983, supra, 4, "all demands plaintiff [i.e., Tribe] asserted respect 320." Final Judgment, (Aug. 11, 1983). "plaintiff shall thereby defendant encompassed compromise construed precedent case." Both recognize III 16 series orders culminating precludes pursuing operation recommendations, Part III_A, consider III_B address No recommendations; them III_C, infra. 17 McGarr, repeat II. 4. just lands." "[c]ertainty particularly important Western States" noting "the strong interest 620. Observing uncontested reservations," 621, n. 12, refused "fully fairly 20 ago," 621. concomitantly representation 626_627. 18 argument. evident reason why point 6_7, maintained "[I]t clear," "that later arbitrarily changing [the Margold] constituting adjudicata." Memorandum 6_7 (Sept. 6, 1991). Characterizing "close," went conclude [sic] proceeding, although proceeding bars issue." 7. 19 correctly relevance litigating stance he "later circumstance" Moreover, hardly surprised shift assessment question, advocating decades. urge preclusive applied lands,2 forfeited defense. agree inadmissible date, reach merits plea. then, objection argued.3 Parties 16; Motion Reopen O. T. Orig., p. every opportunity, incentive, press yet so.4 21 "[W]hile technical [in action], founded decision." Counsel conceded oral "no made "after [Nevada 463 110 (1983)], light dawned there preclusion-or Yuma." Tr. Oral Arg. 46_47. disapprove "light dawned," defense, pronouncements If anything, contrary true. hints believed Rather, found "necessary `finally determined' meaning II(D)(5) _ ." 631 (emphasis added). contains surprising, neglected six later. 23 note defenses "lack standing, absence indispensable statute limitations," "[t]here enough, [lower court] 638 passage, sensibly convey mentioned-standing, limitations-would necessarily affect renewed passage acknowledgment, implied, lurking stemming disposition. 24 Decree, Art. II(D)(5), 145 (Water determined."); (same). 1979. 634 ("[The parties] controversies ripe urged receive evidence, hear legal arguments, disputes, limited purpose any."); Report Tuttle, 1981, 57 (describing [of Reservations] make de novo Court"). 1988, appoint new direct expeditiously possible Petitioners 87_1165, 49. argue Judicial sort circumstances. Most presented, sponte, though result fully consistent policies judicata: solely defendant's avoiding burdens twice defending suit, avoidance unnecessary waste." (1980) dissenting) (citations omitted). here: contend "previously presented." Therefore face prospect redoing once decided. Where resources spent courts cautious raising eroding principle system adjudication. 27 hold B instant agreed, judgment's declaration "be docket no. 9_10 reconsideration, fuller account recommendation. vesting world: "The viable damage 320] illegal money claim, relinquished title." 7, (May 5, 1992). 13, (Apr. 1993) ("[T]he relinquishment sum ."). reasoned, 29 already noted, action. 10. effect-a readily concede. 36; 20. occasion (sometimes called collateral estoppel), unless clear, here, intend "In circumstances, agreements preclude presented presented. Thus support preclusion." Wright, Miller, & E. Cooper, Practice Procedure §4443, 384_385 (1981). "[w]hen law judgment, essential judgment." Restatement (Second) Judgments §27, 250 (1982). confession, consent, default, none litigated. Therefore, Section [describing preclusion's domain] subsequent action." comment e, 257. 30 502 (1953), illustrative. 1942, Commissioner Internal Revenue assessed deficiencies taxpayer taxable 1933, 1938, 1939, alleging excessive depreciation. 503. bankruptcy, Tax deficiency formal 503_504. 1948, 1943, 1944, 1945, defended correct disagreed, holding stipulations, accomplish "estoppel judgment," i.e., effect: 31 "We decisions 1939 pro forma acceptance reasons undisclosed . Perhaps, inferred, Perhaps different reason, exigency arising bankruptcy proceeding. reaches us, unable tell consideration. Certainly tax reached Estoppel includes matters second suit. involve questions court. showing dignity, far estoppel concerned, parties." 505_506 32 perhaps infirmity Instead, argue, §22 "statutory preclusion."5 payment aboriginal automatically universally extinguishes creates title. several contention. Reply (citing Pend Oreille Pub. Util. 1, 926 1502 (CA9 1991)); 873 1189 1989)); Gemmill, 535 1145 1976)). 33 whether, Had trial, won taking, indicating There other, required gain assumption unwarranted. Certainly, discharge scant sense say contrast, cases cited (the correctness address) involved petitions title, choosing instead See, Oreille, F.2d, 1507_1508; 1192, 1194; 1149, 6. 34 invites invitation. preclusion, suffices observe Like Accordingly, C 35 arises accuracy survey Hay Wood Reserve 631_632. specifies location boundary; preserves bed last natural course agreed-upon (3) awards lesser 3,022 acre-feet enough supply needs 468 acres; (4) claiming Reserve; (5) disclaims intent 8_9. settlement. 36 stems ambulatory west bank fixed line representing past 631. 2,100 irrigate 315 California; embodies adjudicate competing reservation; provides become 9_10. expressed concern boundary, achieve ultimate aim determining 10_12, 13_14. settlement.6 37 38 For foregoing reasons, outstanding ones remain enable consolidated bring close. With carry accords reproduced Appendix 26_27. Clerk 2000, 40 ordered. APPENDIX OPINION Proposed ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: 41 Paragraph II(D) (376 344_345) hereby amended follows: annual exceed (i) 719,248 diversions (ii) quantity necessary consumptive 107,903 related uses, whichever less, 1865, 1865 (13 541, 559); November 1873, said date; 16, 1874, except modified; May 15, 1876, 1915, date. B. 345) supplemented (466 145) 44 132,789 20,544 September 1890, February 2, 1911, 45 introductory January (439 421_423) adding following end proviso sentence paragraph: "except western California." 46 II(A)(24) 428) 24) 47 10,745 1,612 Nov. 1873 40,241 6,037 1874 5,860 879 1876 48 II(A)(25) 25) 49 16,720 2,587 Sept. 1890 50 Except herein, Decrees 1979, force 51 G. retain herein deemed appropriate. Notes conferred compensation. gave over, vitiated duress, 70a(3) unlawful §70a(4), dealings equity, §70a(5). Commission's "[f]inal determinations," §70r, Claims, §70s(b), upheld, payment, §70u. Attorney General represent "with Commission, Commission." 70n ed.). compromises section 70t same manner provisions 70u 22(a) "[t]he accordance chapter, touching controversy." 70u(a) Pursuant statute, §70v, ceased operations remaining erred prematurely considering relating 601; premature. stress resisted "reopen[ing] adjudication initial factual made," 623_624; maintain, addressed Noting "encouraged forum," dissent concludes probably declined stage then. Post, One wonder pointless encourage pursuit "in forum"; forum barred. forfeits failing grounds. dissent's observation `pleadings' 1950's," post, beside point. properly modification Response Other Defendants Modification O.T. leave pleading "setting forth occurrences happened since date amended." R. 15(d). pleading, compliance 8(c), ever 1989 reasonable surely expired. tardiness hard for, while least explained continued vitality puzzling go lengths excuse former delay relentlessly condemning latter. provided: "(a) claimant recover appropriated sums Commission. controversy. "(b) reported forever demand group West Bank Homeowners Association brief amicus curiae objecting represents 650 families who lease denied Association's request 514 1081 (1995); (Mar. 29, 1995). observed members "not own area Association] makes rights," interests impeded impaired outcome litigation," objections. 52 53 Chief whom Thomas join, part. 54 believe judicata, dissent. therefore, reasoning Parties' finding "new fact" justifying disagree refusal 55 manner. concede lost. Civil 8(c) pleaded "pleadings" 1950's, made. 1977 comprehensive pleadings, purporting More importantly, neither focused during (1983)(Arizona II). determination, similarly, challenge encouraged Consequently, likely 56 motion, contested rights' doing, contended, lose "anticipated" ante, 16. To conclusion, reads much simple language ignores opinion. stated (1984); best interpreted merely providing adjusted changes, deciding challenged, reading supported discussing explained: limitations. added; footnote language, "anticipate" resolved. explicitly left 58 disregards mention potential judicially all, precluding review. What 59 Now squarely judicata. Res relitigation litigated, "when `[i]t controversy, privity them, received sustain defeat demand, admissible purpose." 110, 129_130 (quoting Cromwell County Sac, 94 351, 352 (1877)). importance certainty "A major inception day, provide assurance Southwest interests, anticipate surplus increase require `gallon-for-gallon reduction available water-needy appropriators.'" 620_621 Mexico, 438 696, 699 (1978)). Thus, allowing recalculation "runs directly counter treating comported clearly intention previous treatment actions, modifications 61 Even exact Indeed, Rifkind, counsel affirmatively represented testimony reflected maps define maximum Earlier proceedings, warned claims: quieting you cut asserted. want aware mere mean Supporting 8_9 (colloquy Master). 62 fell Wisely abandoning reasoning, defends ruling "are precluded, [they] decided, proceedings." 21. fares better. 63 entitled. evidence time. Only larger acreage-not miscalculation irrigability claimed, extension But, possession Rifkind. 64 offers disputes. different. explain California's participating lacked authority individuals "it unfair prejudice titles political approving tangential never States." 629. dispute, hand, Tribe-there land. it. 65 66 SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE DECREED 67 68 appendix dated for. Clerk. andColorado entered. 69 71 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

Category: 1