Navajo Nation v. Usdoi, 996 F.3d 623

Background

The Navajo Nation (the Nation) sued the Department of the Interior and related federal agencies challenging Interior’s 2001 "Surplus/Shortage" Colorado River guidelines, alleging NEPA violations and a breach of the federal trust for failing to consider the Nation’s unquantified Winters water rights.
The Nation’s Reservation (established by treaties, notably 1849 and the 1868 Treaty) lies largely in the Colorado River basin; Winters doctrine implies tribal water rights needed to make reservations viable.
In a prior appeal the Ninth Circuit held the Nation lacked Article III standing for its NEPA claims but allowed its breach-of-trust claim to proceed (Navajo I) and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand the district court denied leave to amend and dismissed the breach-of-trust claim, ruling that (1) the Supreme Court’s 1964 Arizona v. California Decree (Article IX) reserved jurisdiction over Colorado River rights and barred the district court from deciding the claim, and (2) the Nation had not identified a specific treaty/statute/regulation creating an enforceable trust duty.
The Ninth Circuit reversed: the Nation’s requested injunctive relief does not seek judicial quantification of mainstream Colorado River rights (so Article IX did not bar the suit), res judicata did not preclude the fiduciary claim, and Winters rights plus treaty provisions and Interior’s control over the River can anchor an enforceable trust duty; the Nation may amend its complaint.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction under Arizona Decree (Article IX)	Nation: seeks injunction to assess needs and force planning, not a judicial quantification of Colorado River rights.	Federal/Intervenors: Article IX reserves (and they argued may be exclusive) Supreme Court jurisdiction over Colorado River rights, divesting lower courts.	Ninth Circuit: relief sought does not require quantification or modification of Decree; district court has jurisdiction; no need to decide exclusivity.
Res judicata	Nation: claim is a breach-of-trust action distinct from prior water-right adjudication; fiduciary duty was not litigated.	Intervenors: res judicata bars claim because U.S. could have asserted Nation’s mainstream rights in Arizona I but did not.	Ninth Circuit: res judicata does not bar the fiduciary claim—Arizona Decree did not resolve the Nation’s fiduciary duties or Winters rights to mainstream.
Pleading a specific trust duty / futility of amendment	Nation: Winters-implied water rights plus Treaty (1868 farming provisions), BCPA and Law-of-the-River statutes, and Interior documents recognizing Indian Trust Assets together create enforceable fiduciary duties supporting injunctive relief.	Federal/Intervenors: plaintiff must point to a specific treaty/statute/regulation imposing an affirmative duty (relying on Morongo, Gros Ventre, Jicarilla).	Ninth Circuit: Nation adequately identified specific treaty-based and statutory/regulatory sources (Winters + 1868 Treaty + BCPA + Interior’s control and EIS acknowledgments); amendment not futile; claim may proceed for injunctive relief.

Key Cases Cited

Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) (Supreme Court original adjudication initiating allocation of Colorado River rights)
Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964) (Decree) (Supreme Court water-rights decree retaining jurisdiction in Article IX)
Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) (establishes implied tribal water rights when reservations are created)
Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976) (explains Winters principle that government reserves water appurtenant to reservations)
Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of Interior, 876 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2017) (prior Ninth Circuit decision: NEPA standing lacking but breach-of-trust claim not barred by sovereign immunity)
United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980) (Mitchell I) (limits on inferring money-mandating fiduciary duties absent specific statutory/regulatory source)
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (Mitchell II) (statutes/regulations creating pervasive federal role can give rise to enforceable duties)
United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (trust principles and limits on liability; control can inform scope of duties once a duty-imposing source is identified)
Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110 (1983) (res judicata applied where same claim and parties previously adjudicated)
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162 (2011) (requires a statutory/regulatory source to invoke certain fiduciary remedies in discovery context)
Gros Ventre Tribe v. United States, 469 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2006) (explains need for treaty/statute/regulation imposing affirmative duty for injunctive relief)
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. F.A.A., 161 F.3d 569 (9th Cir. 1998) (requires specific duty to compel federal action beyond general trust relationship)
United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1983) (infers treaty-related rights necessary to accomplish treaty purpose)