INDIANS

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether there is a trust relationship between the Navajo Nation (“the Nation) and the U.S. government regarding the Nation’s water rights. Arizona contends that the Nation’s claim infringes upon the Supreme Court’s retained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the Colorado River mainstream in Arizona v. California. Furthermore, Arizona argues that the Nation has failed to state a cognizable breach-of-trust claim because the Nation did not specify a source of law establishing the government’s fiduciary duty. The Nation counters that the claim does not fall under the Supreme Court’s reserved jurisdiction because the Nation did not seek a quantification of its rights to the Colorado River mainstream. The Nation further contends that it has identified provisions in treaties, statutes, and the Winters doctrine to establish the trust duty on the federal government to ensure an adequate water supply for the Navajo Reservation. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for the Navajo Nation’s water resources, the stability of water rights, and the water allocation system.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court must decide whether the Indian Health Service (“IHS”) is required to pay contract support costs to cover the administrative burden of tribal healthcare expenditures of income the tribes earned from Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance companies. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra argues that the text and structure of the Indian Self-Determination Act (“ISDA”) unambiguously requires IHS to only pay contract support costs for activities the IHS directly funds, and to do otherwise would be overly burdensome. The San Carlos Apache Tribe and Northern Arapaho Tribe claim that the ISDA’s text mandates contract support payments for third-party revenue expenditures, and that the Indian canon, which states that any statutory ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the Indian party in a case, mandates that the Court must rule for them if they can show their interpretation of the ISDA is at least plausible enough to render it ambiguous. This case could have implications for the ability of tribes to fund tribal healthcare, as well as the funding of the IHS and its allocation of internal funds.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the State of Oklahoma has, for decades, been improperly exercising criminal jurisdiction over land within the historical boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Native American tribe in Eastern Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that Oklahoma had jurisdiction to prosecute a Native American defendant, Jimcy McGirt, for crimes that he committed within Oklahoma’s borders but entirely on the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s historically tribal lands. McGirt, as the Petitioner, argues that because his crime took place on the Muscogee (Creek) reservation and he is an enrolled Seminole-tribe member, only the federal government has jurisdiction to prosecute him in this case. Oklahoma, as the Respondent, counters that the land on which McGirt committed his crimes was never an Indian reservation—instead, Congress classified the land as a dependent Indian community until Congress removed this classification and gave Oklahoma criminal jurisdiction over the community’s land. From a policy perspective, this case is important because it will likely determine whether a substantial portion of Oklahoma is exclusively controlled by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the federal government, which in turn would have enormous legal, economic, and social implications

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether an Indian reservation can be diminished through events occurring after the sale of land to non-Indian settlers despite an absence of clear congressional intent to diminish the reservation. See Brief for Petitioners, Nebraska, et al., at i. In 1882, Congress passed a statute (“Act of 1882”) to sell a portion of the Omaha Indian Tribe’s (“Omaha Tribe”) reservation in Nebraska. See Brief for Petitioners at 9. Since the enactment of the Act of 1882, it has been unclear whether the portion sold still belongs to the Omaha Tribe’s reservation or if the reservation was diminished. See id. Petitioners (“Nebraska”) argue that de facto diminishment has occurred because the Omaha Tribe has declined to exercise their jurisdiction over the land and the land has lost its Indian character. See Brief for Petitioners at 24–26. The Omaha Tribe denies that the land has lost its Indian character and argues that jurisdiction over the land was never abandoned. See Brief for Respondents at 7. Significantly, the Omaha Tribe argues that neither the statutory language nor legislative history of the Act of 1882 supports the inference that Congress intended to diminish the reservation by selling the land. See id. at 10.

The Court’s decision in this case will implicate the reading of Solem v. Bartlett, which articulated a three-part analysis to evaluate when diminishment of an Indian reservation has occurred: (1) the statutory language used to sell Indian land; (2) events surrounding the passage of the sale of Indian land; and (3) events occurring after the sale of Indian land. See Brief for Petitioners at 21. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether the Yakama Treaty of 1855 (“the Treaty”), which guarantees to the Yakama Indians the right to travel upon Washington public highways, creates a right for tribal members to avoid the Washington State fuel tax, which imposes a tax on fuels used for the propulsion of motor vehicles on Washington highways. Petitioner Washington State Department of Licensing (“the State”) argues that the tax applies because the Treaty does not expressly preempt the tax and because the tax attaches to the possession of fuel, not the transportation of fuel. Respondent Cougar Den, Inc. contends that, according to well-established rules of Indian treaty interpretation, the Treaty preempts the fuel tax and, further, the tax is an importation tax necessarily implicating the Yakama Indians right to travel. From a policy perspective, the Court’s decision in this case will have potential implications on Washington tax revenues, environmental concerns, and competitiveness in the fuel market.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether treaties between the State of Washington (“Washington” or “the state”) and Native American tribes (“the Tribes”) guaranteeing the Tribes the right to fish in certain areas of the state require Washington to protect salmon against despoliation from land development. The present case arises out of a series of barrier culverts—tunnels that allow water to pass underneath roads but prevent fish from passing—that Washington constructed, some pursuant to federal specifications. The culverts prevent salmon from returning, thus inhibiting the Tribes’ ability to fish. Washington argues that the treaties were not created to address such environmental concerns. Moreover, Washington argues that it is not fair for it to be forced to replace the culverts, because the culverts were part of a federally-initiated roadbuilding program, and their design was suggested by the United States. Further, Washington argues that replacing the barrier culverts would not increase the salmon population. The United States and the Tribes disagree, asserting that the parties to the treaties intended to protect the salmon population against man-made despoliation. The United States and the Tribes also assert that no one forced Washington to create the culverts using the design that blocks salmon re-entry and that replacing those culverts would benefit the salmon population. At stake are the future of the salmon populations near the Tribes and potential limitations on state powers to make regulatory decisions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources