Camacho, Kronk Warner, McLachlan & Kroeze on Conservation Governance, Climate Change, and Indian Country

Alejandro E. Camacho, Elizabeth Kronk Warner, Jason McLachlan & Nathan Kroeze have published “Adapting Conservation Governance Under Climate Change: Lessons from Indian Country” in the Virginia Law Review. PDF

Here is the abstract:

Anthropogenic climate change is increasingly causing disruptions to ecological communities upon which Natives have relied for millennia. These disruptions raise existential threats not only to ecosystems but to Native communities. Yet no analysis has carefully explored how climate change is affecting the governance of tribal ecological lands. This Article, by examining the current legal adaptive capacity to manage the effects of ecological change on tribal lands, closes this scholarly and policy gap.

This Article first considers interventions to date, finding them to be lacking in even assessing—let alone addressing—climate risks to tribal ecosystem governance. It then carefully explores how climate change raises distinctive risks and advantages to tribal governance as compared to federal and state approaches. Relying in part on a review of publicly available tribal plans, this Article details how tribal adaptation planning to date has fared.

Focusing on climate change and ecological adaptation, this Article delves into the substantive, procedural, and structural aspects of tribal governance. Substantively, tribal governance often tends to be considerably less wedded to conservation goals and strategies that rely on “natural” preservation, and many tribes focus less on maximizing yield in favor of more flexible objectives that may be more congruent with adaptation. Procedurally, like other authorities, many tribal governments could better integrate adaptive management and meaningful public participation into adaptation processes, yet some tribes serve as exemplars for doing so (as well as for integrating traditional ecological knowledge with Western science). Structurally, tribal ecological land governance should not only continue to tap the advantages of decentralized tribal authority but also complement it through more robust (1) federal roles in funding and information dissemination and (2) intergovernmental coordination, assuming other governments will respect tribal sovereignty. This Article concludes by identifying areas where tribal management practices might serve as valuable exemplars for adaptation governance more generally, as well as areas in which additional work would be helpful.

Petition for Rehearing in City of Tulsa v. O’Brien

Here:

Prior post here.

SCT Amicus Brief in Voting Rights Case

Here is the NCAI brief in Louisiana v. Callas/Robinson v. Callas:

Ann Arbor District Library: “On Anishinaabe Land: Treaties with Indigenous Nations and the Founding of Ann Arbor”

Here.

DOJ Suits Against Oklahoma Prosecutors

Here are the pleadings in United States v. Iski (N.D. Okla.):

And here are the pleadings in United States v. Ballard (N.D. Okla.):

Kirsten Carlson on Justice in Alaska

Kirsten Matoy Carlson has published “Justice Beyond the State” in the Alaska Law Review. PDF

Abstract:

For decades the intersectionality of extreme rurality and cultural difference has led scholars and tribal leaders to advocate for recognition of local authority as a solution to the justice gap in rural Alaska. Local control often means developing courts in and extending jurisdiction to Alaska Native villages. This Article evaluates strengthening tribal courts or justice systems through restorations of jurisdiction as a way to address access to justice issues in Alaska Native villages. It argues that restorations of jurisdiction and the development of tribal justice systems must ensure that Alaska Natives define the justice provided in their communities. Restorations of jurisdiction that require Alaska Native villages to replace their traditions and laws with adversarial processes and values threaten to undermine access to justice.

Montana Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Blackfeet Tribal Jurisdiction, Again Orders Exhaustion

Here are the materials in Kumar v. Schildt (D. Mont.):

1 Complaint

10 Motion to Dismiss

21 Opposition

25 Reply

27 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Montana SCT Affirms State Law Right to “Stable Climate System”

Here is the opinion in Held v. State of Montana:

Prior post here.

North Dakota Federal Court Rejects Tribal Court Jurisdiction over Enforcement of ROW Agreement on Allotment, Holding US Has Exclusive Authority

Here are the materials in WPX Energy Williston LLC v. Fettig (D.N.D.):

1 Complaint

1-8 MHA Nation Supreme Court Decision

8 Fettig Answer + Counterclaim

13 Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim

16 Response to 13

18 Motion for PI

22 Reply ISO 13

23 Tribal Response to 18

26 Reply ISO 18

30 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Yep, this is that cigarette case again.