Here are the materials in Acres Bonusing Inc. v. Marston (N.D. Cal.):
78-1 Boutin Jones Motion to Dismiss
79 Janssen Malloy Motion to Dismiss
80-1 Rapport Motion to Dismiss
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in Acres Bonusing Inc. v. Marston (N.D. Cal.):
78-1 Boutin Jones Motion to Dismiss
79 Janssen Malloy Motion to Dismiss
80-1 Rapport Motion to Dismiss
Prior post here.
Here are the Indian law articles:
Restoring Oklahoma: Justice and the Rule of Law Post-McGirt
Sara E. Hill
Digital Economic Zones: A Program for Comprehensive Tribal Economic Sovereignty
W. Gregory Guedel and Philip H. Viles Jr.
Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten: A Tribal Practitioner’s Reading of McGirt and Thoughts on the Road Ahead
Stephen H. Greetham

Here are the materials in Cayuga Nation v. Parker (N.D. N.Y.):

Here is the petition in Arizona v. Navajo Nation:
Questions presented:
I. Does the Ninth Circuit Opinion, allowing the Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the Secretary to develop a plan to meet the Nation’s water needs and *ii manage the mainstream of the LBCR so as not to interfere with that plan, infringe upon this Court’s retained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the LBCR mainstream in Arizona v. California?
II. Can the Nation state a cognizable claim for breach of trust consistent with this Court’s holding in Jicarilla based solely on unquantified implied rights to water under the Winters Doctrine?
Lower court materials here.

Naiomi Metallic has posted “Five Linguistic Methods for Revitalizing Indigenous Laws,” forthcoming in the McGill Law Journal, on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Building on the ground-breaking work on the revitalization of Indigenous laws ongoing over the past decade, this article seeks to contribute to our understanding of how Indigenous languages can be used to recover Indigenous laws. It posits that there is not one single linguistic method, but at least five: 1) the ‘Meta-principle’ method; 2) the ‘Grammar as revealing worldview’ method; 3) the ‘Word-part’ method; 4) the ‘Word-clusters’ method; and 5) the ‘Place names’ method. Using the Mìgmaq language to illustrate, the article explains each method and provides examples of how they can be used to inform Indigenous law revitalization. The article also shows that one does not have to be a fluent, first-language speaker to engage with linguistic methods for Indigenous law revitalization, by highlighting the various published resources like dictionaries and lexicons, reference and teaching texts, atlases, and more, that can be harnessed to engage in this work. This makes engaging with the linguistic methods accessible to the many Indigenous peoples who, because of the impacts of colonialism, are only starting to re-learn their Indigenous language. This revelation should give greater confidence to the non-fluent that they too can play a role in the revitalization of both their language and laws.
Highly recommended.
Here:

Here.


Here.
Here are the materials so far in Brown v. Haaland (D. Nev.):

You must be logged in to post a comment.