Here: Oglala Sioux Tribe v. US Army Corps Cert Petition
Lower court materials here and here.
Questions presented:
1. Does the 5-year statute of limitations of Section 12 of the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946 (“ICCA”), 60 Stat. 1049, 1052 (formerly codified at 25 U.S.C. § 70k (repealed)), which applies only to claims accruing no later than August 13, 1946, bar federal court jurisdiction over an Indian tribe’s claim that the Government breached its trust responsibility to consult with the tribe before taking significant actions adversely affecting the preservation and protection of the numerous items and sites of the tribe’s cultural and historic heritage located on federal lands within the tribe’s aboriginal territory, specifically before making the transfers of federal lands authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of August 17, 1999, Pub. L. 106-53, Title VI, §§ 601-609, 113 Stat. 269 (“WRDA”), where the tribe’s breach-of-duty-to-consult claim does not involve either an historical land claim for money damages or the revision of treaties, contracts or agreements between the tribe and the United States, and where the breach occurred no earlier than 2002 when the WRDA transfers began?
2. Does an Indian tribe have standing to pursue its claim that the Government breached its trust responsibility to consult with the tribe before taking significant actions adversely affecting the preservation and protection of the numerous items and sites of the tribe’s cultural and historic heritage located on lands within the tribe’s aboriginal territory, where the merit of the tribe’s non-frivolous contention, that it has a legally protected interest in the tribe’s aboriginal territory based on the Government’s trust relationship with the Indian tribes, must be assumed in assessing the tribe’s standing to sue?
3. Does the ICCA’s 5-year statute of limitations bar federal court jurisdiction of a Sioux Indian tribe’s claims that the 1889 Act of Congress purportedly changing the boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation never went into effect for failure to satisfy the conditions specified by Congress in Section 28 of that Act, where those claims do not involve either an historical land claim or the revision of treaties, contracts or agreements between the Tribe and the United States?
4. Does a Sioux Indian tribe have standing to pursue its claims that an 1889 Act of Congress purportedly changing the Great Sioux Reservation boundaries never went into effect for failure to satisfy the conditions specified by Congress, where the challenged WRDA transfers of federal lands to the State of South Dakota adversely affect the tribe’s legally protected interests in Native American cultural and historic items and sites located on federally-owned fee lands situated within the pre-1889 Act boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation, thereby triggering the obligation under Article 12 of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 to obtain the consent of the Sioux Tribes to this “cession” of reservation territory?
Yet another Mario Gonzalez sighting! Two in two days (see here).
Turtle Talk 