The head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Tuesday wound up a six-year odyssey that chronicled decades of suffering and tragedy in thousands of pages of testimony from victims of the residential school system.
Huff Post Canada link HERE
Aboriginal Rights
EPA Accepting Comments on Revised Interpretation of CWA Tribal Provisions
Link to Request for Comments here.
EPA proposes to conclude definitively that section 518 includes an express delegation of authority by Congress to eligible Indian tribes to administer regulatory programs over their entire reservations. This reinterpretation would eliminate the need for applicant tribes to demonstrate inherent authority to regulate under the Act, thus allowing tribes to implement the congressional delegation of authority unhindered by requirements not specified in the statute. The reinterpretation would also bring EPA’s treatment of tribes under the Clean Water Act in line with EPA’s treatment of tribes under the Clean Air Act, which has similar statutory language addressing tribal regulation of Indian reservation areas.
Comments must be submitted by October 6, 2015.
Ojibwe Gearing Up for Treaty Hunting and Gathering Case
The potential case concerns wild rice gathering and hunting off reservation and will likely include a habitat protection component. The Minnesota Public Radio article is here.
Cherokee Nation seeking hunting & fishing compact with OK
Here.
Indigenous activists among those killed worldwide for protecting the environment.
Here’s the BBC article.
Navajo Nation Announces Landmark Settlement with the US
On Wednesday, the Navajo Nation announced that it had settled trust claims dating back 50 or more years with the U.S. government. Ben Shelly, Navajo Nation President, had disclosed in May that an agreement had been reached in principle, but it was not until Wednesday, September 24th, that the settlement was officially announced. The $554 million agreement will settle claims that the U.S. government mismanaged funds and natural resources on the Navajo reservation for decades.
The settlement will be signed in Window Rock, Ariz. on Friday.
Navajo President Ben Shelly’s announcement can be watched here.
Kirsten Carlson on The Supreme Court of Canada and Aboriginal and Treaty Rights
Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted her paper, “Political Failure, Judicial Opportunity: The Supreme Court of Canada and Aboriginal and Treaty Rights,” just published in the American Review of Canadian Studies, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
What role do courts play in public policymaking? Fifty years ago, Robert Dahl found that courts largely defer to the political process in public policymaking. Accepted by the majority of scholars today, Dahl’s view suggests skepticism that courts play a significant role in the policymaking process. The few scholars, who concede that courts play a role in policymaking, often see that role as less direct or as in response to public opinion. Using the development of Aboriginal and treaty rights policy in Canada as a case study, I find that the Supreme Court of Canada succeeded in revitalizing the making of Aboriginal and treaty rights policy in the 1990s even without the support of politicians or the public. In 1990, the Court irrevocably altered Aboriginal and treaty rights policy by establishing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35(1) of the Constitution and curtailing Parliament’s ability to extinguish these rights. Most notably, the Court reinvigorated the policymaking process by encouraging politicians to revisit Aboriginal and treaty rights policies. When they failed, the Court re-entered the policymaking arena by recognizing and protecting a wide range of Aboriginal and treaty rights from governmental incursion over the next six years. The Court’s emergence as a significant and influential policymaker was the product of historical and institutional forces. While legal mobilization, growing public support, and the judicialization of politics contributed to the development of the Court’s role, I use interviews with political and legal players as well as the Court’s own language to show how the failure of the political process influenced the Court to reinvigorate Aboriginal and treaty rights policymaking. My emphasis on political failure illuminates a more complex relationship between courts, the political process, and policymaking. It also highlights how courts can play an influential role in public policy making.
California Next to Legalize Online Poker?
The California Legislature has till the end of August 2014 to decide on two bills that would regulate online poker. Both bills are backed by different interest groups, including various tribes. The bills are AB 2291 and SB 1366.
Additionally, the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, CA is moving forward on an online poker site with the intention of adding real money play soon. This will be an interesting development to keep an eye on and could help set the legal landscape for future tribal online gaming.
Check out this brief blog post on the Iipay Nation’s online poker site: Here
B.C. Supreme Court Decision to Quash Ministry Grant of Timber without Consultation
Oral Arguments Today in the Canadian Supreme Court in Keewatin v. Ontario
The case on Harvesting Rights in Treaty 3. Description here:
The case is about Ontario’s authority to issue forestry authorizations in Treaty 3, which covers most of north-western Ontario and extends into Manitoba. After one of the longest and most thorough treaty interpretation trials in Canadian history, Justice Sanderson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decided that the Ojibway made treaty in 1873 with Canada, not Ontario. This, coupled with Canada’s exclusive responsibility for “Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians” under the constitution, meant that only Canada had the authority to issue forestry authorizations that would significantly affect Treaty 3 hunting and fishing rights.
A unanimous Court of Appeal disagreed. Relying heavily on the Privy Council’s 1888 decision in St. Catherine’s Milling, the Court held that Ontario’s ownership of Crown lands in Treaty 3 left no role for the federal government in land-use decisions affecting treaty rights. To involve Canada, said the Court, would create an “unnecessary, complicated, awkward and likely unworkable” process.
First Peoples Law firm blog posted the briefs (or factums).
First Nations’ briefs here.
Government’s briefs here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.