Arizona v. Navajo Nation

-

Unbiased Case Analysis:

            The Navajo Nation live on a reservation which includes parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Their treaty in 1868 with the U.S. gave them a legal right to this land. However, the Navajo Nation has struggled with having access to the Colorado River for a source of fresh water. They sued the government for failing to protect their water rights. The district court dismissed their case, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision. The case was brought to the Supreme Court to be heard.

            The Court found that the 1868 Treaty which established the Navajo Reservation did not require the U.S. government “…to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe.” Justice Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion while Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the dissenting opinion. The Court focused on how the treaty did not explicitly state that the United States was required to secure water for the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation argued that water security was an implied part of signing the original 1868 treaty.

Personal Perspective:

            I agree with the Court’s decision that under the 1868 treaty the U.S. government does not have an obligation to protect the water rights of the Navajo Nation. The Judiciary branch does not and should not have the power to add details or words to already existing treaties and legislation. However, I acknowledge that steps need to be taken to protect the rights and ensure the well being of Native Americans nations like the Navajo. Although the Judicial branch cannot do much in this situation, the executive and legislative branches can legally take steps to ensure the water rights of the Navajo Nation.

Media Critique and Analysis:

            Overall, I found that media outlets had a neutral outlook on the case. I could not find any major differences in how CNN and Fox News reported on the case. They managed to present the facts of the case while not explicitly swaying the reader’s opinion in one way or the other. They acknowledged the Court’s reasoning while also acknowledging the situation that the Navajo Nation finds itself in. The Court made the right decision, but it cannot be ignored the consequences for the Navajo Nation or other Native Americans nations. They will legally struggle in situations like Arizona v. Navajo Nation unless action is taken by the executive or legislative branches.

Sources:

Arizona v. Navajo Nation | Oyez

Supreme Court rules against Navajo Nation in water supply case | CNN Politics

Supreme Court rules against Navajo Nation in Colorado River water rights case | Fox News

Supreme Court: US Not Responsible for Water Rights; Navajo Nation Still Battling for Water - Native American Rights Fund

Comments

  1. Amanda MinardiFebruary 5, 2024 at 7:18 PM

    I really enjoy reading your entries because I feel like I would not know exactly where to find this news, and it is nice to stay updated on situations like this one! I also agree with the court's ruling; however, morally it is upsetting to me that the Navajo Nation is unable to effectively secure rights to the river. It definitely is an interesting situation because I think it would be unethical for the court to start changing specific pieces in an already solidified agreement. I hope it gets resolved to where they can have some protection and access. Historically, native communities have been dismissed and their experiences have been subdued in media, so I am glad that you are covering this type of content!

    ReplyDelete
  2. William RileyFebruary 13, 2024 at 1:06 PM

    Hey Ian Great Post on the Navajo water rights.
    I agree with you 100% while the judiciary can only uphold the law that exists, the legislative should do more to help the Native American population. As the greatest landholder by far of the largest parts of what used to Native American home, the government should worry more about giving back than keeping what they have and taking more in my opinion.
    Very level and logical post, sir.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

-
Image
  Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Unbiased case analysis:             Harvard College uses an admissions process that considers the race of applicants to determine whether they should be accepted or not. This is a common practice for many colleges in the United States. Harvard College was sued by Students for Fair Admissions over their use of affirmative action. Affirmative action is simply an action that helps specific demographic groups due to the United States’ history of discrimination. A district court ruled in favor of Harvard and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Frist Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. It was initially going to be consolidated with another case, but the Court chose to hear it individually.             The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of ...
Read more

Biden v. Nebraska

-
Image
Unbiased Case Analysis:             During his presidential run Joe Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower. He kept his word and used executive action to enact his promise. Nebraska and five other states challenged Biden and his forgiveness program. They argued on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the case. The Supreme Court stepped in to decide on it.             The Court decided 6-3 in favor of Nebraska. The Court found that the Secretary of education does not authority under the HEROES Act “…to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in dept principal and affect nearly all borrowers.” Most of the justices cited the major questions doctrine as their reaso...
Read more

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

-
Image
For my first blog post I am going to examine one of the latest cases SCOTUS ruled on: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. Unbiased Case Analysis: Deborah Laufer is a disabled woman who checks hotel websites to see if they provide accessibility information required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She sued Acheson Hotels after discovering one of their hotel websites failed to provide accessibility information. The district court dismissed her case since she did not plan to visit the hotel. Therefore, she would suffer no injury from the hotel’s lack of accessibility information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision determining that a lack of intent to visit the hotel did not excuse Laufer from injury. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case and rule on it. The Court unanimously voted to vacate the case. The Court found the case to be moot which means it has lost its relevance which no longer neces...
Read more