Navajo Nation v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 19-17088 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, based on lack of jurisdiction, of Navajo Nation's breach of trust claim alleging that Federal Appellees failed to consider the Nation's as-yet-undetermined water rights in managing the Colorado River. Several states intervened to protect their interests in the Colorado's waters.
The panel concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint because, in contrast to the district court's determination, the amendment was not futile. The panel explained that, although the Supreme Court retained original jurisdiction over water rights claims to the Colorado River in Arizona I, the Nation's complaint does not seek a judicial quantification of rights to the River, so the panel need not decide whether the Supreme Court's retained jurisdiction is exclusive. Furthermore, contrary to the Intervenors' arguments on appeal, the Nation's claim is not barred by res judicata, despite the federal government's representation of the Nation in Arizona I. Finally, the panel concluded that the district court erred in denying the Nation's motion to amend and in dismissing the Nation's complaint. In this case, the complaint properly stated a breach of trust claim premised on the Nation's treaties with the United States and the Nation's federally reserved Winters rights, especially when considered along with the Federal Appellees' pervasive control over the Colorado River. Accordingly, the panel remanded with instructions to permit the Nation to amend its complaint.
Court Description: Water Rights / Tribal Matters. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal, based on lack of jurisdiction, of Navajo Nation’s breach of trust claim alleging that Federal Appellees failed to consider the Nation’s as-yet-undetermined water rights in managing the Colorado River. The district court held that any attempt by the Nation to amend its complaint was futile because the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide the breach of trust claim due to the Supreme Court reserving jurisdiction over allocation of rights to the Colorado River in Arizona v. California NAVAJO NATION V. USDOI 3 (Arizona I), 373 U.S. 546 (1963) (opinion); accord Arizona v. California (1964 Decree), 376 U.S. 340, 353 (1964) (decree). The panel held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint because the amendment was not futile. Although the Supreme Court retained original jurisdiction over water rights claims to the Colorado River in Arizona I, the Nation’s complaint did not seek a judicial quantification of rights to the River, and therefore, the panel need not decide whether the Supreme Court’s retained jurisdiction was exclusive. The panel concluded it had jurisdiction to consider the Nation’s claim, and the district court erred in holding otherwise. The panel held, contrary to the Intervenors’ arguments on appeal, that the Nation’s claim was not barred by res judicata, despite the federal government’s representation of the Nation in Arizona I. The panel held that the Nation, here, asserted a different claim than the water rights claim the federal government could have asserted on the Nation’s behalf in Arizona I. The federal government’s fiduciary duty to the Nation was never at issue in Arizona I, and no final judgment was ever entered on the merits of any question concerning that subject. Finally, the panel held that the district court erred in denying the Nation’s motion to amend and in dismissing the Nation’s complaint, because the complaint properly stated a breach of trust claim premised on the Nation’s treaties with the United States and the Nation’s federally reserved Winters rights, especially when considered along with the Federal Appellees’ pervasive control over the Colorado River. At this early stage of the litigation, the panel declined to address whether the Nation’s Winters rights included rights to the 4 NAVAJO NATION V. USDOI mainstream of the Colorado River or to any other specific water resources. The panel remanded to the district court with instructions to permit the Nation to amend its complaint. Judge Lee concurred. He wrote separately to emphasize that the Nation’s proposed injunctive relief should not and did not implicate the Supreme Court’s retained jurisdiction in the 1964 Decree.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on February 17, 2022.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.