The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legal obligation stemming from the unique government-to-government relationship between the federal government and pre-constitutional, sovereign Native Nations. This moral and fiduciary duty requires the United States to support Tribal self-determination in a way that protects Tribal treaty rights, assets, lands, natural resources, and more. But the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Navajo Nation casts doubt on the federal judiciary’s willingness to uphold the trust doctrine and provide duly needed recourse to Native Nations, absent specific circumstances. Amidst a serious public health crisis and increasingly dry conditions due to climate change, the Navajo Nation sought quantification of its water rights to the Colorado River. The Nation argued that the trust doctrine obligates the federal government to quantify those water rights. But the Bureau of Reclamation has historically excluded Natives from discussions regarding the Colorado River Compact. In June 2023, the highest court failed to provide the Navajo people with redress. Does this decision mean that the trust doctrine is broken beyond repair? I argue no. The case did not eviscerate the Navajo Nation’s right to water quantification. The courts are failing to uphold the responsibility as intended. This Note calls on federal administrative agencies to view the Indian trust responsibility under an “environmental justice plus” lens to legally enforce the trust doctrine with solutions for the Navajo.
“Tó éí iiná”—Water is Life: Repairing the Indian Trust Doctrine With an “Environmental Justice-Plus” Agency Approach
