WaPo: “For Navajo, crowded homes have always
been a lifeline. The pandemic threatens that.”
NYTs: “For Tribal Members in Oklahoma, Medicaid Expansion Improves Access to Specialty Care”
WBUR: “The Klamath River Water Crisis And Its Lessons On Climate Change”
Daily Kos: “Texas Abortion Clinics In Native American Reservations?”
NBC News: “How Texas abortion law is undermining Native American women’s reproductive justice”
The 74: “Boarding School History Underpins Court Ruling on Native Education”
NYTs: “‘‘A Sadness I Can’t Carry’: The Story Of The Drum“
Guardian: “Native American tribes enforce mask mandates regardless of state bans“
Native America Calling: “Revisiting the idea of reparations“
Roll Call: “Biden breaks pledge to Indian Country by keeping wolves off endangered list“
WaPo: “A push to get more recognition for Native Americans who once called D.C. home”
Popsugar: “Stoodis! Reservation Dogs Has Officially Been Renewed For a Second Season”
Here are the materials in Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA (D. Ariz.):
Here are the materials in State of Texas v. Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (E.D. Tex.):
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in Four Corners Health Care v. Roots Home Health Care (D. Utah):
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
In 2017, the National Indian Gaming Commission determined that a parcel of land in Iowa that is held in trust by the United States for the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska is eligible for gaming. The Commission reasoned that the land is eligible as part of “the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition.” 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii). The appellants here, the States of Iowa and Nebraska and the City of Council Bluffs, challenged that decision in the district court. The district court agreed with the Commission that the Ponca Restoration Act, Pub. L. No. 101-484, 104 Stat. 1167 (1990), does not preclude gaming on the parcel. But because the Commission failed to consider a relevant factor in evaluating whether the parcel is restored land for the Tribe, the court remanded the matter for further consideration. The appellants noticed an appeal, arguing that the court erred in its interpretation of the Ponca Restoration Act. We affirm the district court’s order.
Briefs here.
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.