Navajo Nation v. Department of the Interior
876 F.3d 1144
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- The Navajo Nation, a federally recognized tribe whose reservation lies largely within the Colorado River basin, lacks a judicially decreed (quantified) Winters (reserved) water right from the Lower Colorado River.
- The Secretary of the Interior (through the Bureau of Reclamation) issued Colorado River "Surplus" (2001) and "Shortage" (2008) Guidelines linking surplus/shortage declarations to Lake Mead elevations and creating mechanisms like Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS).
- The Nation challenged those Guidelines, alleging NEPA violations (failure to consider impacts on its unquantified water rights and water needs) and breach of the United States’ trust duties to the Tribe.
- The district court dismissed the Nation’s NEPA claims for lack of Article III standing and dismissed the breach-of-trust claim for lack of a waiver of sovereign immunity; the Nation’s Rule 60(b) motion to re-open and amend was denied.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the NEPA claims (no standing), reversed the sovereign-immunity dismissal as to the breach-of-trust claim (finding §702 APA waiver covers non-monetary claims), and remanded the breach-of-trust claim for merits consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for NEPA claims | Navajo Nation: Guidelines procedurally harm Tribe by failing to consider impacts on its unquantified Winters rights and on its practical water needs; this creates a reasonably probable threat via third-party reliance and altered allocations. | Interior: Nation’s asserted harms are speculative; Guidelines do not legally alter Winters rights and do not plausibly make harm to Nation’s interests reasonably probable. | Held: No standing. Nation’s complained chain of contingencies is too speculative to show a "reasonable probability" of concrete harm to either its unquantified Winters rights or its generalized water-availability interest. |
| Scope of sovereign-immunity waiver under APA § 702 | Navajo Nation: § 702 waives sovereign immunity for non-monetary claims seeking equitable relief, including breach-of-trust claims; § 704’s final-agency-action limitation applies only to APA causes of action. | Interior (and district court): § 702’s waiver is limited by § 704 and prior Ninth Circuit authority—§ 702 does not open the door for non-final or non-APA claims. | Held: Reversed the dismissal. § 702 waives sovereign immunity for all non-monetary claims; § 704’s final-agency-action requirement limits APA claims but does not restrict § 702’s waiver for non-APA equitable claims. Remanded for merits. |
| Rule 60(b) relief to re-open and amend after dismissal | Navajo Nation: Denial of leave to amend effectively prejudiced claims because statute of limitations ran; thus Rule 60(b)(6) relief was warranted to allow amendment. | Defendants: Nation had multiple chances to amend; it failed to cure defects or identify specific amendments; extraordinary circumstances for Rule 60(b)(6) relief not shown. | Held: Affirmed as to NEPA claims. Although the Nation showed why dismissal functioned as with prejudice, district court did not abuse discretion in denying Rule 60(b)(6) because Nation failed to show futility was overcome or specify proposed amendments. Appeal moot on 60(b) insofar as it sought to plead alternative waivers of immunity because breach-of-trust claim was revived. |
| Justiciability of breach-of-trust failure-to-act claim | Navajo Nation: The United States breached its trust by failing to determine/secure water quantities needed by the Nation; equitable/non-monetary relief is available. | Interior: Sovereign immunity bars the claim absent an express waiver; § 702 does not waive immunity for this type of claim. | Held: §702 applies to non-monetary claims like the Tribe’s breach-of-trust action; dismissal on sovereign-immunity grounds was erroneous; remanded for district court to consider merits and possible amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing doctrine; injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
- Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 341 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2003) (relaxed imminence standard for procedural-NEPA injuries; "reasonable probability" test)
- Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964) (Supreme Court decree allocating Lower Basin Colorado River water and addressing reserved Indian water rights)
- Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. United States, 870 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1989) (interpreting APA §702 as waiving sovereign immunity for non-monetary equitable claims)
- Gallo Cattle Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 159 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing §704 final-agency-action limitation in the APA context)
- Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 644 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2011) (panel opinion reconciling Gallo Cattle and Presbyterian Church; held §704 limits APA claims but §702 waiver covers non-APA equitable claims)
- Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976) (explaining Winters reserved water-rights doctrine)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) (legislative history on expansion of judicial review and waiver of immunity under APA)