treaty trust claim

What happened

A treaty trust claim argues that a treaty does more than set boundaries: it makes the federal government a trustee with a duty a court can enforce. Recent cases show how hard that argument has been to win.

In Arizona v. Navajo Nation (decided June 22, 2023), the Navajo Nation asked courts to hold that the treaty required the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Nation. The Navajo Reservation was established by an 1868 peace treaty. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit. It found that the treaty imposed a number of specific duties on the United States, but said nothing about any affirmative duty to secure water, and it quoted the rule that Indian treaties cannot be rewritten or expanded beyond their clear terms.

Apache Stronghold, a group that includes San Carlos Apache members, argued that Article 9 of an 1852 treaty created an enforceable trust duty to protect traditional uses of ancestral lands, even where the government holds title, and that a congressionally required land transfer for a copper mine would violate it. In 2024 the en banc Ninth Circuit held the claim failed because the government's statutory obligation to make the transfer abrogated any contrary treaty obligation.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari on May 27, 2025. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented from that denial; Justice Alito took no part.

Summarized with AI assistance from 5 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error