On August 28, 2026, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe, and individual Native American plaintiffs in North Dakota moved for leave to file an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe. This filing follows a May 2026 U.S. Supreme Court decision sending the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration under a new legal standard.
You can see previous posts on this case here.
Kekek Stark has posted “Tribal Law Interpretations of Justice and Justiciability” on SSRN.
Highly recommended. More great work on Anishinaabe Inaakoniewin from Prof. Stark.
Here is the abstract:
In the field of tribal law, the term justice is a commonly used term, yet the term has often gone undefined. So how is justice as an Indigenous concept defined? What does justice as an Indigenous concept entail? When is a dispute (or a tribal court action) justiciable? This article will address these questions. As evidenced from the story of The Woman Who Married A Beaver we can think of justice as inherently tied to our preexisting obligations and responsibilities to one another through the implementation of thoughtful decisions, made on behalf of the people through the achievement and maintenance of harmony, balance, and reciprocal kinship relationships. Utilizing this understanding, this article examines the concept of Indigenous justice through four basic principles: harmony, relationality, inclusivity; and responsibility. This article proceeds to illustrate examples of how the justiciability concepts of standing, ripeness, mootness, and the political question doctrine apply in tribal forums and provides tribal courts and tribal law practitioners recommendations for the future. In summary, this article urges tribal practitioners and tribal courts to utilize the principles embodied in the concept of Daabidawise Onaakonigewin (justice). As such, tribal practitioners and tribal courts will be able to recognize the reciprocal kinship relationships, responsibilities, duties, and obligations of all those that encompass Indigenous justice.
Michelle Bryan and Kekek Stark have posted “Restoring the Full Waterway Bundle (Part I): A Reckoning for Indigenous Title to Submerged Lands” on SSRN.
Highly recommended. Any work, especially great work like this, that connects Indigenous philosophies to federal Indian law is valuable work.
Here is the abstract:
It is time for federal submerged lands law to face a day of reckoning. This reckoning is necessary because assumed state sovereignty of submerged lands lacks a legal basis in basic property law, the Constitution, the federal trust relationship, and Indigenous law. Instead, it stems from antiquated rulings formulated, in Justice Gorsuch’s words, within the “atmosphere” of colonialism. In many instances, the historical record reflects that Tribes had neither ceded aboriginal title to such beds when a particular state was created, nor had Congress clearly abolished such title, as the law requires.
Reckoning is a strong word, but so is the authority and opportunity that comes with sovereign bed ownership. For many tribes, their creation stories, ceremonies, food sources, economies, environmental health, and cultural touchstones center upon specific waters believed to be included within their homelands, hunting and fishing grounds, and gathering places. But reckoning is not the end of the story. In the spirit of reconciliation, this article provides a reassessment of Indigenous title to submerged lands and argues that these lands are spaces of common governance in which the three sovereigns—federal, tribal, and state—share authority to manage a vital resource on which all peoples depend.
Part I begins with a discussion of why submerged lands ownership is fundamental to tribal culture and sovereignty. Part II then confront the atmosphere of colonialism that has excluded tribes from water spaces. We summarize the flawed legal test from United States v. Holt State Bank—the case most often used to determine Indian title to the submerged lands of navigable waterways—and explain why the test is both unlawful and inadequate to fulfill the United States’ trust obligations to tribes. In Part III, we propose a reckoning—a legal test better aligning with the Court’s newer jurisprudence in cases like Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians and Herrera v. Wyoming. Ultimately, we advocate for the joint sovereign enterprise of placekeeping—caretaking the cultural, historical, ecological, economic, and social well-being of these spaces that serve as lifeways for us all. Through a corrected legal test to submerged lands, we will begin rebuilding the waterway “bundle” as an integrated legal whole.
From Seneca Nation President J. Conrad Seneca:
Lake Ontario derives its name from Indigenous roots. In our traditional Seneca language, its name is sga:nyodai:yoh, meaning ‘beautiful lake.’ Long before the United States existed, and before settlers brought the English language to our lands, our Seneca and Haudenosaunee ancestors traveled Lake Ontario and surrounding waterways for many reasons, including diplomacy among our nations. Now, we are seeing the exact opposite of diplomacy.
The action that President Trump is taking is starkly un-presidential and demeaning to his office and his standing as the leader of the free world. His blatant disrespect toward the Seneca people, other Haudenosaunee nations, and all Indigenous people is unacceptable.
The President cannot assert ownership over our culture or erase it through irresponsible political action. His order should be rescinded, and the name Lake Ontario should be left as it is, reflective of the Seneca people, other Haudenosaunee nations and all Indigenous people surrounding the lake.
To us, Lake Ontario is not a political pawn. It does not separate the countries of the United States and Canada. It is all Indigenous land, which has been occupied by Indigenous people since time immemorial.
In 1794, President George Washington and the Seneca and other Haudenosaunee nations signed the Treaty of Canandaigua, promising to live in peace and friendship with one another. The United States also promised our people the free use and enjoyment of our lands forever. President Trump’s aggression toward our culture with his Executive Order violates that peace, friendship and commitments of the Canandaigua treaty. This is the latest in a long history of willful attempts to disregard the United States’ commitments to the Seneca and other Haudenosaunee nations. President Trump needs to be reminded of those commitments.
I would also remind the President of the tenets of the United States Constitution, where Article 6 clearly states that treaties are the ‘supreme Law of the Land,’ and need to always be honored as such.
We will always call Lake Ontario by the name derived from the language of our ancestors – the name that, like the strength and influence of the Seneca people, will live on forever, long after the intrusive political tirades of individual men.
All Native Nations need to stand united to vocally and forcefully reject this change. We are also calling on all federal, state and local representatives – regardless of political party – to stand with the Seneca Nation and oppose the President’s Executive Order.
Scholars of critical toponymy have long observed that naming geographic features is an exercise of political power as colonial and imperial governments use renaming to inscribe their authority onto Indigenous landscapes, to legitimate their territorial claims, and to displace Indigenous relationships to place. Trump’s Executive Order is explicit about doing just that. It states that the lake “has long been an integral asset to American exploration, settlement, commerce, and defense” and it notes that the US “claims most of the Lake’s volume.”
Additional Resources
The Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force Position on the Great Lakes (Sept. 9, 2005)
Resources on critical toponymy, which treats geographic naming as an exercise of political power rather than a neutral labeling practice
From the opinion:
We are “reluctant to read into ambiguous statutory text” a “radical or fundamental change” to that longstanding statutory scheme. Congress did not take a wrecking ball to all sports gambling regulations built up over decades by federal, state, and tribal governments when it amended the CEA to add the definition of swap we are considering today.
Additional Resource
Prediction Market Litigation Tracker by Mick Bransfield
In US District Judge Richard Leon’s August 13 decision denying TO’s request for a preliminary injunction to stop construction the border wall on its reservation, he said:
While I have concluded that a preliminary injunction is unwarranted, I fully expect the Government in the months ahead to follow through on its guarantees of consultation and cooperation with the Nation to address the Nation’s concerns regarding border wall construction!
But TO reported that on August 25 at about 4 am, roughly 20 masked and armed Customs and Border Protection agents, plus border wall contractors, BIA law enforcement personnel, and a CBP BORTAC SWAT team entered TO lands. Work immediately began with soil sampling and other activities. TO reported that CBP used a vehicle blockade to prevent TO police from removing or citing the contractors.
Also, on Friday, August 28, TO asked the district court to stay its ruling while it appeals to the D.C. Circuit.
Additional Reading
Tohono O’odham Nation Public Service Announcement, Armed Federal Agents and Contractors Enter Tohono O’odham Nation Land, August 25, 2026
“We will not let this destroy our sacred sites”: Indigenous leaders fight Trump administration’s border wall, Stephanie Casanova, August 28, 2026 for Arizona Luminaria
Use of masked agents on Tohono O’odham land sparks Native outrage at Cherokee DHS chief Markwayne Mullin, Eileen Mamaghani and Ellis Preston, August 28, 2026 for Cronkite News
Rep. Grijalva, Ruiz Call for Immediate Halt to Border Wall Construction on Tribal Lands, August 25, 2026
GAO Report, Southwest Border: Additional Actions Needed to Address Cultural and Natural Resource Impacts from Barrier Construction, Sept. 2023
I’m adding two valuable memos by Monte Mills and Martin Nie to the Roadless Rule resources posted yesterday. Mills is the Charles I. Stone Professor of Law and Director of the Native American Law Center at the University of Washington, where his work focuses on Federal Indian law, Tribal sovereignty, and natural resources. Nie is Professor of Natural Resources Policy and Director of the Bolle Center for People & Forests at the University of Montana, with particular expertise in federal public lands governance.
Their September 2025 memo provides historical and legal background on Tribal interests in the original Roadless Rule and later Idaho, Colorado, and Tongass rulemakings. Their new August 28, 2026 memo focuses on USDA’s proposed rule and Draft EIS, including what they describe as a “shell game” of shifting protection from a national rule to forest- and project-level processes while some of those protections are themselves being weakened. They also report that 108 of 126 current forest plans, about 86%, provide no substantive recognition or meaningful protection of Tribal rights or interests.
These pair well with the ILPC papers that I created and posted yesterday, which approach the rulemaking from a different direction. One analyzes what Tribes actually placed in the 2025 administrative record and USDA’s response to those concerns, while the other addresses strategic considerations for Tribal Nations before the September 21 comment deadline, including relevant legal doctrines and other hooks for building and preserving the administrative record.
Attachments
From the WI DNR Letter of August 27:
Thank you for the updates provided on the afternoon of Wednesday, August 26, 2026, regarding the liquified natural gas spill near Saxon, Wisconsin. As noted during the call, the agency is deeply concerned about this spill and immensely frustrated by other recent noncompliance events and has several outstanding questions of Enbridge and would appreciate written responses as expeditiously as possible. The department requests that you halt work on the pipeline re-routing project until this event on the existing pipeline is sufficiently resolved and Enbridge has demonstrated that measures are in place to prevent future spill events related to all pipeline work.
* * * *
Tribal Outreach
Wisconsin Tribal Nations and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) have raised several questions and concerns with the department regarding the liquefied gas spill near Saxon, as well as previous compliance-related incidents associated with Enbridge projects over the past several weeks and months. Please provide written responses to the following questions as expeditiously as possible:
- What is Enbridge’s communication and outreach strategy for engaging directly with Wisconsin Tribal Nations and GLIFWC regarding the current incident and other recent compliance-related events?
- When does Enbridge anticipate implementing this communication strategy?
- How does Enbridge intend to maintain regular and timely communication with Wisconsin Tribal Nations and GLIFWC as response and remediation activities continue?
Additional Resource
Collision causes pipeline leak near Bad River Reservation, shuts down Line 5, Amelia Shafer for ICT, August 26, 2026
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.