In the 1982 case Arizona et al. v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over water rights between several Native American tribes and the state of Arizona. The tribes claimed that they had reserved water rights based on treaties with the federal government, while Arizona argued that it had jurisdiction over all waters within its borders under state law. The court held in favor of the tribes, ruling that their claims to reserved water rights were not precluded by previous litigation or legislation and could proceed in federal court. This decision affirmed tribal sovereignty and recognized federally-reserved water rights for Native American reservations, which are paramount to any competing state law claim.

In the dissenting opinion for Arizona et al. v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona et al., Justice William Brennan, joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize tribal sovereignty over water rights on reservation lands. They contended that federal law has long recognized Indian tribes as distinct political entities with inherent powers of self-governance, including control over their natural resources such as water. The dissenters believed that state courts should not have jurisdiction in determining these rights because it undermines this principle of tribal sovereignty and could lead to biased decisions against the tribes due to potential conflicts of interest at a local level.