Abstract: Over 150 years ago, the federal government signed a treaty promising the Navajo people a permanent home within the bounds of their ancestral homeland. To this day, that promise remains unfulfilled because the Navajo people face a severe water access crisis. When the Navajo Nation brought the United States to the Supreme Court to enforce its promise, the Court declined to hold the federal government accountable.
This Comment analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Navajo Nation through the lens of the judiciary’s historical approach to the federal trust relationship. The Court has traditionally defined the federal trust relationship as both a source of power and a source of responsibilities—with the Court acting to enforce federal trust obligations to the tribes. Therefore, this Comment argues that the Court’s sudden reliance on principles of separation of powers to avoid broadly defining the federal government’s treaty obligations in this case was the wrong choice. In light of the Court’s ill-advised decision, advocates must get creative to reaffirm federal trust obligations.
