Borrower Class Prevails over Tribal Lending Operation’s (former?) Partner in Virginia Federal Court

Here are the materials in Williams v. Big Picture Loans LLC (E.D. Va.):

Prior posts here.

North Dakota Federal Dismisses Federal Common Law Trespass Claims of Indian Allottees against Pipeline Company

Here are the materials in Chase v. Andeavor Logistics PC (D.N.D.):

Ninth Circuit Affirms Tossing Navajo Causes of Action in On-Reservation Car Accident Claim in Federal Court

Here is the opinion in Jensen v. EXC Inc.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Mille Lacs Ojibwe Beef with County Sheriff

Here are the briefs in Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Madore:

Other briefs TK.

Lower court materials here.

Not to scale

Vanessa Racehorse and Anna Hohag on Climate Justice and LandBack

Vanessa Racehorse and Anna Hohag have posted “Achieving Climate Justice Through Land Back: An Overview of Tribal Dispossession, Land Return Efforts, and Practical Mechanisms for #LandBack,” published in the Colorado Environmental Law Journal.

Here is the abstract:

Due to the increasing pressures of the climate change crisis, federal and state governments are beginning to acknowledge that Indigenous-led stewardship and control over Tribal aboriginal homelands is a crucial component of addressing climate change. In the United States, Tribal nations have a long history of responsible land stewardship, with environmental conservation and respect for the world’s biodiversity being an inextricable piece of Tribal customs, traditions, and knowledge. This Article strives to pay due respect to traditional land stewardship and its important role in the past, present, and future.

Part I of this Article starts with an overview of the history of forcible dispossession of Native American land, and provides initial thoughts on the myriad of meanings that the expression “Land Back” can hold. The United States has a long history of forcibly removing Native American Tribes from their ancestral homelands and relocating them to smaller plots of land, with some estimates indicating Tribal nations ultimately lost 98.9 percent of their aboriginal homelands post-contact. Part II will discuss how this change in land tenure and land use can be linked to climate change, with Indigenous communities often at the frontline of climate change events. Additionally, areas predominantly occupied by Indigenous peoples are frequently more prone to experience extreme weather conditions, such as extreme heat, drought, greater wildfire risks, and extreme flooding, the latter of which has caused the relocation of some coastal Indigenous communities.

Although modern Indian land use is manifold, traditional Indigenous stewardship is rooted in careful management of the ecosystem. Indigenous peoples across the globe remain the stewards and protectors of most of the world’s biodiversity, while standing at the forefront of the opposition to extractive industries. According to a report conducted by the Indigenous Environmental Network, Indigenous-led movements in resistance to oil and gas projects have stopped or delayed greenhouse gas emission equal to nearly one-quarter of the annual total U.S and Canadian emissions. The leadership demonstrated by Indigenous peoples to combat the climate crisis is indicative of the cultural value system that justifies land restitution.

Parts III, IV, and V of this Article explore the efforts being made on the federal, state, and Tribal level to return land to its original caretakers and discusses practical ways that Tribal governments and organizations are achieving Land Back through mutual goals of conservation and repatriation. While the preferred method used by the federal and state governments and their respective agencies has been to extend opportunities for Tribal co-management, this is not enough to curb the urgency of the impending climate disaster, the effects of which have been, and will continue to be, felt first and foremost by Indigenous peoples. It is time for Land Back. There is no clearer argument for Land Back than to prevent irreparable harm to the planet—a cause that is unquestionably in the greatest good for all people.

a cubist painting of native american painting

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Briefs in Stitt v. City of Tulsa

Here:

United States Seeks SCOTUS Review of Decisions Awarding Contract Support Costs to Tribal Health Clinics

Here is the petition in Beccera v. Northern Arapaho Tribe:

Question presented:

Whether IHS must pay “contract support costs” not only to support IHS-funded activities, but also to support the tribe’s expenditure of income collected from third parties.

Lower court materials here.

Here is the petition in Beccera v. San Carlos Apache Tribe:

The question presented is the same in both cases.

Lower court materials here.

Utah Federal Court Rejects Ute Tribal Member’s Effort to Avoid Traffic Ticket in Roosevelt City

Here are the materials in Amboh v. Duchesne County (D. Utah):

1 Complaint

22 County Motion to Dismiss

23 District Court Motion to Dismiss

24 Response to 22

26 Amboh Show Cause Motion

27 County Response to 26

31 Reply ISO 26

32 Response to 23

33 Reply ISO 23

35 Magistrate Report

36 Objection to 35

39 County Response

40 District Court Response

43 DCT Order

US Escapes Liability from Fatal Car Accident Caused by Oglala Sioux Corrections Officer

Here are the materials in Estate of Pretend Eagle v. United States (D.S.D.)

Joe Hillman and Clayton Fulton on Tribal Infrastructure and Sovereignty

Joe Hillman and Clayton Fulton have published “Tribal Infrastructure as a Road to Reclaiming Sovereignty” in the Washburn Law Journal.

Here is the abstract:

The ability to shape one’s built environment has always been tied to the idea of sovereignty, both at the levels of individual people and units of communal self-governance. Modern tribal infrastructure is overwhelmingly influenced by a top-down approach where money comes from the federal government and credit for infrastructure projects in tribal communities is a source of pride for distant politicians. This Essay explores the history between infrastructure and sovereignty and proposes that tribes aremore than capable of planning for their communities, and are likely better at it than the U.S. government.