kavanaugh's majority opinion is more focused on legal precision and adherence to a formal interpretation of the treaty and the judiciary's role, while gorsuch's dissent takes a broader, more empathetic approach, deeply engaging with the historical and moral dimensions of the case. this contrast is evident both in their respective tones and in how they frame the obligations of the u.s. government. kavanaugh prioritizes judicial restraint, while gorsuch emphasizes the ongoing trust obligations and the real-world consequences of the court's decision for the navajo nation. -thomass concurrence- justice thomas concurs with kavanaughs opinion but adds a pointed critique of the entire notion of a general trust relationship between the u.s. government and native american tribes. he argues that any obligations should be specific, statutory, or treaty-based, and he casts doubt on the legitimacy of this trust relationship doctrine as a basis for legal obligations. > the influence of the trust relationship idea on these doctrinal areas is troubling, as the trust relationship appears to lack any real support in our constitutional system. he continues, it is difficult to see how such a plenary power could be rooted in a trust relationship with indians. and it seems at least slightly incongruous to use indians trust in the government as both the basis for a power that can restrict tribal rights and canons of interpretation that favor indians. arizona v. nation, 143 s. ct. 1804, 1818 (2023). thomass concurrence suggests skepticism toward the doctrine of federal trusteeship over native affairs, seeing it as an ungrounded and historically unsupported legal construction.
United States