News

76 readers

2 users here now

Breaking news and current events worldwide.

founded 1 year ago

US Supreme Court Rules Against Navajo Nation in Water Rights Case (earth.org)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Navajo Nation had argued that their water rights were protected under an 1868 treaty.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (9 children)

From the article:

The largest Native American reservation in the United States has lost a key legal battle with the Biden administration over its access to a critical waterway.

The Navajo Nation had argued that the federal government is legally obligated to address the tribe’s water needs from the drought-stricken Colorado River, which serves about 40 million people in the arid Southwest US.

According to the tribe, an 1868 treaty promised them sufficient land and water to establish a “permanent home” after being confined to a reservation. Nowadays, however, many Navajo residents survive on just a fraction of the water used by the average American citizen, and about one-third of the 175,000 reservation residents lack access to running water.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) concluded that the treaty “does not require the United States to take those affirmative steps,” as conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained in a statement...

The vote comes after a federal appeals court initially sided with the Navajo, a ruling that four states – along with major water users in California and Arizona – had prompted the Supreme Court to review. Last week’s vote in the Arizona v. Navajo Nation case effectively reverses that ruling.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Biden administration

ah yes, supreme court, famously the puppets of the political mastermind Biden

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

The disagreement/"battle" was between the Navajo nation and the Federal Government.

The Navajo Nation had argued that the federal government is legally obligated to address the tribe’s water needs from the drought-stricken Colorado River

The Supreme Court was the body that was was making a judgement about which of the two sides was right.

So, "Biden administration" in this context refers to the Federal Government, not to the Supreme Court.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Navajo Nation has been fighting this particular battle against every sitting US government for tye past 20 years. Is the Biden administration one of those sitting governments or not?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So why not just say "The US Government" instead of "the Biden administration" If the battle has been going on for several decades, why call out the current administration particularly? Because then you can point to this and say "see what a horrible person Biden in who personally is responsible for this happening!"

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because the facts are the facts. The Attny General of the Biden Administration could have conceded the case and the water rights at any point Biden wanted. Biden chose to do the same thing Trump, Obama, and Bush did. The same thing every US president has always done when the indigenous folks rouse some rabble about the promises we made to them.

The treaties aren't some secret, they were written down and you can read them for yourself. The people signing it agreed on the words to communicate their intentions. Make your own opinion and decide whether Bidens administration fought this over the genuine intentions of the promises made in the treaty, or over the modern interests of current and future non-indigenous voters. Think for yourself, form your own opinion rather than wringing your hands over the optics of the headline.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's just how legal cases work... if you sue a state, it's documented in court records as a suit against the sitting governor. If the governor changes, the title of the suit changes.

Same thing here with the president. It doesn't matter who wins the election... any ongoing court cases are now against the new chief executive of the government.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Is that true? This case was Arizona v. Navajo Nation, which was consolidated with Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation. These cases were brought by the government, not by the Navajo, but if they were, this case would have still been Navajo Nation v. Arizona. Is the respondent/defendent not the same as who the case is "against?"

load more comments (6 replies)