SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
navajo nation
'Shameful': Right-Wing Supreme Court Rules Against Navajo in Colorado River Case
Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren called the decision "disappointing" but also expressed confidence that "we will be able to achieve a settlement promptly and ensure the health and safety of my people."
Jun 22, 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against the Navajo Nation "over claims that the federal government has failed to assert its desperate need for water access," as the Lakota People's Law Project put it.
While calling the decision "disappointing," Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren said in a statement that "I am encouraged that the ruling was 5-4. It is reassuring that four justices understood our case and our arguments."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion for Arizona v. Navajo Nation, backed by all but one of the other right-wing members. That Justice Neil Gorsuch penned a dissent—joined by the three liberals—did not shock court watchers, given his positions in previous cases involving Native American rights, including a "huge win for tribes" earlier this month.
Established by an 1868 treaty, Diné Bikéyah or Navajoland stretches across more than 17 million acres of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah and is home to roughly 170,000 people, thousands of whom lack access to running water in their homes. The shrinking and overused Colorado River runs along the northwestern border of the tribe's reservation.
"My job as the president of the Navajo Nation is to represent and protect the Navajo people, our land, and our future," Nygren said Thursday. "The only way to do that is with secure, quantified water rights to the Lower Basin of the Colorado River. I am confident that we will be able to achieve a settlement promptly and ensure the health and safety of my people. And in addition, the health and productivity of the entire Colorado River Basin, which serves up to 30 tribes and tens of millions of people who have come to rely on the Colorado River."
Thursday's decision came two decades after the Navajo Nation sued the federal government regarding water rights to the lower portion of the Colorado River. The new ruling relates to two consolidated appeals: one brought by the Biden administration and another filed by multiple California water districts along with the states of Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada.
Those two challenges stem from a 2021 decision in the tribe's favor from the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which reversed a 2019 ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow in Arizona.
The high court heard arguments for the case in March. Kavanaugh wrote for the majority that "the question in this suit concerns 'reserved water rights'—a shorthand for the water rights implicitly reserved to accomplish the purpose of the reservation."
"The Navajos' claim is not that the United States has interfered with their water access," he continued. "Instead, the Navajos contend that the treaty requires the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajos—for example, by assessing the tribe's water needs, developing a plan to secure the needed water, and potentially building pipelines, pumps, wells, or other water infrastructure—either to facilitate better access to water on the reservation or to transport off-reservation water onto the reservation."
"In light of the treaty's text and history, we conclude that the treaty does not require the United States to take those affirmative steps," Kavanaugh added. "And it is not the judiciary's role to rewrite and update this 155-year-old treaty. Rather, Congress and the president may enact—and often have enacted—laws to assist the citizens of the Western United States, including the Navajos, with their water needs."
Meanwhile, Gorsuch contended that the court's majority "rejects a request the Navajo Nation never made. This case is not about compelling the federal government to take 'affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajos.'"
"Respectfully, the relief the tribe seeks is far more modest," he asserted. "Everyone agrees the Navajo received enforceable water rights by treaty. Everyone agrees the United States holds some of those water rights in trust on the tribe's behalf. And everyone agrees the extent of those rights has never been assessed."
"Adding that pieces together, the Navajo have a simple ask: They want the United States to identify the water rights it holds for them. And if the United States has misappropriated the Navajo's water rights, the tribe asks it to formulate a plan to stop doing so prospectively," he wrote. "Because there is nothing remarkable about any of this, I would affirm the 9th Circuit's judgment and allow the Navajo's case to proceed."
As The Associated Pressreported Thursday:
The Biden administration had said that if the court were to come down in favor of the Navajo Nation, the federal government could face lawsuits from many other tribes.
[...]
The government argued that it has helped the tribe secure water from the Colorado River's tributaries and provided money for infrastructure, including pipelines, pumping plants, and water treatment facilities. But it said no law or treaty required the government to assess and address the tribe's general water needs. The states involved in the case argued that the Navajo Nation was attempting to make an end run around a Supreme Court decree that divvied up water in the Colorado River's Lower Basin.
Reporting from the reservation in March, just before the high court heard arguments in the case, NBC News' Lawrence Hurley joined Marilyn Help-Hood on a four-mile drive to her local well. The schoolteacher in her 60s "has no running water at her small one-story home," the journalist explained, "and needs to regularly replenish her supplies for drinking, cooking, washing dishes and feeding her small collection of sheep, horses, and dogs."
"As Help-Hood and others see it, the tribe has been relegated to secondary status in the fight over water rights in the Southwest, where states have long fought for their own pieces of the pie through complex negotiations and litigation," according to Hurley. "The scramble for water is only becoming more intense, with a decadeslong drought leading to depleted supplies in the major reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin, with the growing threat of climate change looming in the future."
Along with stressing the importance of appreciating the scarcity of water—a value Help-Hood said she passed on to her grown children—the mother of five put the U.S. government's position in the case into the broader context of centuries of mistreatment.
"We were here first, but we are still put on the back burner," she said. "In reality, we are not really being treated fairly."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Huge Win for Tribes' as US Supreme Court Preserves Indian Child Welfare Act
"By ruling on the side of children's health and safety, the U.S. Constitution, and centuries of precedent, the justices have landed on the right side of history," said one Cherokee chief.
Jun 15, 2023
In what one chief called "a major victory" for Native American tribes, the United States Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a federal law enacted to protect Indian children from being separated from their families.
The justices' 7-2 decision in Haaland v. Brackeen leaves intact the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a 1978 law passed in response to over a century of Native American children being taken from their relatives and often placed in state or religious institutions or with white families.
"Today, the Supreme Court once again ruled that ICWA, heralded as the gold standard in child welfare for over 40 years, is constitutional," Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. said in a statement. "Today's decision is a major victory for Native tribes, children, and the future of our culture and heritage. It is also a broad affirmation of the rule of law, and of the basic constitutional principles surrounding relationships between Congress and tribal nations."
"We hope this decision will lay to rest the political attacks aimed at diminishing tribal sovereignty and creating instability throughout Indian law that have persisted for too long," Hoskin added. "By ruling on the side of children's health and safety, the U.S. Constitution, and centuries of precedent, the justices have landed on the right side of history."
\u201cThe Supreme Court handed down a major decision Thursday in the Haaland v. Brackeen case, affirming the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act by a 7-2 vote.\n\nThe decision represents a major victory for federal Indian law. \n\nhttps://t.co/nOCK9mcShA\u201d— Lakota People's Law Project (@Lakota People's Law Project) 1686841070
The ICWA gives preference to Native American families in adoption and foster care proceedings, a policy challenged by a white couple, the state of Texas, and others, who claimed the law is race-based and therefore violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, a Texas couple, had already adopted a Navajo boy and are also trying to adopt his half-sister, who is 4 years old and has lived with them since she was an infant. The Navajo Nation opposes the adoption.
"Before us, a birth mother, foster and adoptive parents, and the state of Texas challenge the act on multiple constitutional grounds. They argue that it exceeds federal authority, infringes state sovereignty, and discriminates on the basis of race," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority. "The United States, joined by several Indian tribes, defends the law."
In addition to the Navajo, the Cherokee, White Earth Band of Ojibwe, and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo tribes were defendants in the case.
"The issues are complicated," Barrett added. "But the bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners' challenges to the statute, some on the merits and others for lack of standing."
\u201cJustice Barrett's 7\u20132 opinion for the court holds that the Indian Child Welfare Act does NOT exceed Congress' constitutional authority or violate the anti-commandeering doctrine. She dismisses nondelegation and equal protection claims on standing. https://t.co/spqRRwCZSW\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1686838073
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, with the latter writing that "the Constitution confers enumerated powers on the federal government. Not one of them supports ICWA."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the majority but wrote that the ICWA's race-based nature—specifically a hypothetical scenario in which "a prospective foster or adoptive parent may in some cases be denied the opportunity to foster or adopt a child because of the prospective parent's race"—raises "significant questions under bedrock equal protection principles and this court's precedents."
"Courts, including ultimately this court, will be able to address the equal protection issue when it is properly raised by a plaintiff with standing—for example, by a prospective foster or adoptive parent or child in a case arising out of a state-court foster care or adoption proceeding," Kavanaugh added.
\u201cHer parental rights were terminated, meaning she was no longer legally her daughter\u2019s mother.\n\nBut then the state's highest court ruled that under the Indian Child Welfare Act, her parental rights should be restored.\n\nToday, the Supreme Court upheld ICWA. https://t.co/5tGKdlud45\u201d— ProPublica (@ProPublica) 1686841207
Before passage of the ICWA, between 25% and 35% of Native American children were being taken from their homes and placed with other families for adoption, in foster care, or in church- or state-run institutions.
During and after the peak decades of the U.S. genocide against the Western Indians, vanquished tribes were forced to send their children to boarding schools to be "civilized." Under the mantra "kill the Indian, save the man," hundreds of thousands of Native children suffered this cultural genocide. Many never returned home again, as diseases claimed many lives. Parents who resisted giving up their children were often imprisoned, sometimes on California's foreboding Alcatraz Island.
The 2021 discovery of hundreds of Indigenous children buried in unmarked graves at a Canadian boarding school prompted U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to write about how her Laguna Pueblo grandparents were stolen from their families when they were 8 years old in "an effort to eradicate our culture and erase us as a people."
\u201cMy full statement on the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to uphold the Indian Child Welfare Act\u201d— Secretary Deb Haaland (@Secretary Deb Haaland) 1686843197
Responding to Thursday's Supreme Court ruling, Haaland said that "for nearly two centuries, federal policies promoted the forced removal of Indian children from their families and communities through boarding schools, foster care, and adoption."
"Those policies were a targeted attack on the existence of tribes, and they inflicted trauma on children, families, and communities that people continue to feel today," she added. "Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978 to put an end to those policies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular