Page:Arizona v. Navajo Nation.pdf/44

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023)
23

Gorsuch, J., dissenting

than money damages” based on an allegation that federal officials have “acted or failed to act” as the law requires. 5 U. S. C. §702.

This Court’s decisions have long recognized that claims for equitable relief in federal district court operate under a distinct framework than claims for money damages brought in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Acts. In United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206 (1983) (Mitchell II), for example, the United States argued that the Court should not allow an action for damages under the Tucker Acts to proceed because the plaintiffs could have brought a separate “actio[n] for declaratory, injunctive, or mandamus relief against the Secretary” in federal district court. Id., at 227. This Court agreed with the government’s assessment that the plaintiffs could have brought a claim like that—even as it went on to hold that they were free to bring a damages action under the Tucker Acts framework too. Ibid.

Lower courts have appreciated all this as well. As they have observed, nothing in the Tucker Acts or our decisions applying them “impl[ies] that [Tribes] are not [separately] entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief” under other laws or treaties and the traditional framework described above. Cobell v. Norton, 240 F. 3d 1081, 1101 (CADC 2001); see also Loudner v. United States, 108 F. 3d 896, 899 (CA8 1997). Consistent with this approach, they have frequently allowed Tribes to bring freestanding claims seeking to enforce treaty obligations—including water-related ones. See, e.g., Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252, 256 (DC 1973) (requiring the Secretary of the Interior to “justify any diversion of water from the Tribe with precision”); see also Northwest Sea Farms, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 931 F. Supp. 1515, 1520 (WD Wash. 1996) (“In carrying out its fiduciary duty, it is the government’s … responsibility to ensure that Indian treaty rights are given full effect”). The cases the Court relies on simply do not enter the picture.