Here is “Native Americans Protest Proposed Copper Mine In Arizona.”
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Tenth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Pueblo of Jemez Aboriginal Title Land Claim
National Native American Bar Association Issues Formal Ethics Opinion on Duties of Advocates in Tribal Disenrollment Proceedings
Here is ethics opinion number 1: “Duties of Tribal Court Advocates to Ensure Due Process Afforded to All Individuals Targeted for Disenrollment”:
National Native American Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion No. 1
This follows up an earlier resolution from NNABA.
Chippewa Cree Tribe Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Whistleblower Matter
Bob Anderson on Water Rights, Water Quality, and Regulatory Jurisdiction in Indian Country
Robert T. Anderson has posted his paper, “Water Rights, Water Quality, and Regulatory Jurisdiction in Indian Country,” forthcoming in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal, on SSRN.
The abstract:
In the seminal Indian water rights case, Winters v. United States (1908), the Court posed this question: “The Indians had command of the lands and the waters—command of all their beneficial use, whether kept for hunting, ‘and grazing roving herds of stock,’ or turned to agriculture and the arts of civilization. Did they give up all this?” The Court’s answer was no, and since then a large body of law has developed around Indian water rights, although the primary focus has been on the amount of water reserved for various tribal purposes. While Indian nations use property rights theories to protect their water resources from loss to non-Indian use, they also deploy their inherent governmental authority through tribal water codes and the federal Clean Water Act to protect water quality. As competition for water resources grows and development pressures adversely affect water quality, Indian Nations and their neighbors face new challenges in defining Indian water rights for instream habitat protection and traditional consumptive uses.
This article reviews the nature of Indian water rights—both on and off reservations—and the use of tribal sovereignty to protect those rights in terms of quantity and quality. The case law in this arena is sparse, and the ability to predict an all-or-nothing litigated outcome is correspondingly limited. Under these circumstances, parties would be best off to default to the usual presumptions recognizing inherent tribal authority over on-reservation water resources and state authority outside of Indian country. From this jurisdictional baseline, tribes, states and the United States should cooperate to ensure that a given regulatory regime protects water quality and access to water.
Highly recommended!
New Mexico Supreme Court Determines that Parcel Three of Fort Wingate on the Navajo Nation Reservation is Not Indian Country
Here is the opinion in State v. Steven B.:
Decision in Navajo Health Foundation — Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Burwell
Here are the materials in Navajo Health Foundation – Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Burwell (D. N.M.):
From the opinion:
Finally, the Court will grant the MSJ on two grounds. First, the Court will deem the Claim denied, because Dayish has not given Sage Hospital a “date certain” by which he will decide the Claim; rather, he conditioned his October 21, 2015, deadline upon Sage Hospital’s cooperation. Second, even if Dayish had given Sage Hospital a date certain by which he will decide the Claim, his proposed fourteen-month period for deciding the Claim is unreasonably long under the CDA. [4] Accordingly, even if the Court did not deem the Claim already denied, it would order Dayish to approve or deny the Claim by July 25, 2015.
Federal Court Denies TRO in Southern Ute Challenge to Fracking Rules
Here are the new materials in Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Dept. of Interior (D. Colo.):
The complaint is here.
California Appellate Court Issues Slightly Modified Opinion in Cosentino v. Fuller
Ninth Circuit Rejects Nonrecognized Kawaiisu Tribe’s Claim to Tejon Ranch
Here is the opinion in Robinson v. Jewell.
From the court’s summary:
The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims of the Kawaiisu, a non-federally recognized Native American group, and its elected chairperson, David Laughing Horse Robinson, asserting title to the Tejon Ranch, one of the largest continuous expanses of private land in California.
The panel held that the district court properly determined that the Tribe had no ownership interest in the Tejon Ranch and that no reservation was established. Specifically, the panel held that the district court correctly concluded that the Tribe’s failure to present a claim to the Board of Commissioners created by the California Land Claims Act of 1851 extinguished its title; that the Treaty with the Utah did not convey land rights to the signatory tribes or recognize aboriginal title; and that Treaty D was never ratified and conveyed no rights. The panel rejected the Tribe’s complaints of alleged forgery and deception in obtaining patents for the four Mexican land grants comprising Tejon Ranch because all of the alleged acts occurred prior to the submission of the claims to the Board of Commissioners, and the Tribe could not challenge the validity of land patents after more than a century of time had passed.
The panel held that the claims against Kern County were subsumed into the Tejon Ranch ownership determination. The panel further held that the Tribe’s claims originally asserted against the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, and Robinson’s individual claims, were waived for failure to assert them on appeal. The panel
declined to consider the Tribe’s new arguments on appeal.
Briefs:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.