Here is the opinion in Silva v. Parrish (E.D. N.Y.):
Briefs here.

On August 11, 2025, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe, Chemeheuvi Indian Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, and Morongo Band of Mission Indians, moved to intervene in Torongo v. Burgum, a case that threatens the long-sought designation of the Chuckwalla National Monument. Tribal Nations led the effort to establish Chuckwalla National Monument. The challenge to the monument is brought in federal court by a Michigan resident who purportedly has mining claims within the monument boundaries and a national off-road vehicle special interest group.
More here.

Complaint is here:
The Native American Rights Fund has provided legal assistance to Tribes in Alaska since NARF’s founding in the early 1970s. In 1984, NARF opened an Alaska office so it could better serve Alaska Native Tribes and individuals. In the 40 years since NARF Alaska opened its doors, the office has litigated some of the most influential cases in the development of federal Indian law in Alaska. Below is an overview of the foundational work that NARF has done with and on behalf of Alaska Native Tribal governments and people.
Here are the pleadings in Silva v. Farrish (E.D. N.Y.):
152 NCAI and Shinnecock Kelp Farmers Amicus Brief
160 Law and History Professors Amicus Brief
161-11 Pls’ MoL in Supp of SMJ
161-14 Defs’ MoL in Opp’n to Pls’ SMJ
162-1 Defs’ MoL in Support SJM

Prior post here.
Here are the new materials in Metlakatla Indian Community v. Dunleavy (D. Alaska):

Ninth Circuit materials here.
Here are the new materials in United States v. Abouselman (D.N.M.):
Prior post here.

Alyssa Couchie has published “ReBraiding Frayed Sweetgrass for Niijaansinaanik: Understanding Canadian Indigenous Child Welfare Issues as International Atrocity Crimes” in the Michigan Journal of International Law.
Here is the abstract:
The unearthing of the remains of Indigenous children on the sites of former Indian Residential Schools (“IRS”) in Canada has focused greater attention on anti-Indigenous atrocity violence in the country. While such increased attention, combined with recent efforts at redressing associated harms, represents a step forward in terms of recognizing and addressing the harms caused to Indigenous peoples through the settler-colonial process in Canada, this note expresses concern that the dominant framings of anti-Indigenous atrocity violence remain myopically focused on an overly narrow subset of harms and forms of violence, especially those committed at IRSs. It does so by utilizing a process-based understanding of atrocity and genocide that helps draw connections between familiar, highly visible, and less recognized forms of atrocity violence, which tend to be overlapping and mutually reinforcing in terms of their destructive effects. This process-based understanding challenges the neocolonial, racist, and discriminatory attitudes reflected in the drafting and interpretation of the Genocide Convention and other atrocity laws that ignore the lived experiences of subjugated groups. Utilizing this approach, this note argues that, as applied to Indigenous populations, Canada’s longstanding discriminatory child welfare practices and policies represent an overlooked process of anti-Indigenous atrocity violence. Only by understanding current child welfare challenges facing Indigenous communities as interwoven with longstanding anti-Indigenous atrocity processes, such as the IRS system, can we understand what is at stake for affected communities and fashion appropriate remedies in international and domestic law.

Here is the opinion in Metlakatla Indian Community v. Dunleavy.
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials here.

You must be logged in to post a comment.