Indian Peaks Band Files to Protect Tribal Water Rights

On April 1, 2026, the Indian Peaks Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition for Stay with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s March 2, 2026, approval of the Pine Valley Water Supply Project.

The filing seeks review of BLM’s decision authorizing a large‑scale groundwater extraction and pipeline project in southern Utah and asks the IBLA to stay the project approvals while the appeal is pending. The Band argues that the decision violates federal law, including the National Environmental Policy Act, and unlawfully threatens the Band’s federally reserved water rights and culturally significant resources.

You can see more here.

Protections continue for Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument

On April 1, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the Arizona Legislature’s challenge to Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. The decision leaves the monument in place and fully protected. You can see the decision here:

In September of 2024, the District Court denied, without prejudice, the Tribes’ motion to intervene in this case, finding the United States adequately represented the Tribes’ interests at that time. Here is that order:

The Ninth Circuit’s April 1 decision affirms the District Court decision dismissing the two consolidated cases filed against the Monument designation.

The National Monument protects thousands of historic and scientific objects, sacred places, vital water sources, and the ancestral homelands of many Indigenous Peoples. Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni lands include cultural and sacred places of the Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Moapa Band of Paiutes, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Navajo Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. The Monument receives its name from the Indigenous names given to the area by the Havasupai and Hopi. Baaj nwaavjo (BAAHJ – NUH-WAAHV-JOH) means “where Indigenous peoples roam” in the Havasupai language, and i’tah kukveni (EE-TAH – KOOK-VENNY) means “our ancestral footprints” in the Hopi language.

Learn More: Arizona Legislature v. Biden

Tribal Nations Granted Intervention to Protect Chuckwalla Homelands

On March 3, 2026, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the Tribal Nations’ motion to intervene in Torongo v. Burgum, the case that threatens the long-sought designation of the Chuckwalla National Monument.

In August 2025, five Tribal Nations — the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe, the Chemeheuvi Indian Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians — filed a motion to intervene to protect Chuckwalla’s national monument status.

Learn more about Tribal Nations’ advocacy for their homelands in the Chuckwalla region.  

Second Circuit Briefs in Silva v. Farrish [Shinnecock Eel Harvesting Rights]

Here:

More TK.

Lower court materials here and here.

New York Federal Court Rejects Shinneock Eel Harvesting Claims

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

Briefs here.

Tribes Move to Intervene in Chuckwalla National Monument Lawsuit

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:

NARF’s Work in Alaska Over 40 Years

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.

Silva v. Farrish – Shinnecock Fishing Case Summary Judgment Briefings

Here are the pleadings in Silva v. Farrish (E.D. N.Y.):

152 NCAI and Shinnecock Kelp Farmers Amicus Brief

154 USET Amicus Brief

159 GLIFWC 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

161-15 Pls’ Reply MoL

162-1 Defs’ MoL in Support SJM

162-33 Pls’ MoL in Opp

162-35 Defs’ Reply MoL

Prior post here.

Alaska Federal Court Rejects State’s Theory of Case on Remand from Ninth Circuit on Metlakatla Fishing Rights

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

Ninth Circuit materials here.

New Mexico Federal Court Determines that Winters Applies to Santa Ana Pueblo Water Rights Claim . . . Or something like that

Here are the new materials in United States v. Abouselman (D.N.M.):

Prior post here.

A view of ABQ, unrelated to this case.