Here.
The Guardian: “Trump officials rush to mine desert haven native tribes consider holy”
Here.
Here.
Trevor Reed has posted “Fair Use as Cultural Appropriation,” forthcoming in the California Law Review, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
Over the last four decades, scholars from diverse disciplines have documented a wide variety of cultural appropriations from Indigenous peoples and the harms these inflict. And yet, there are currently no federal laws other than copyright that limit the appropriation of song, dance, oral history, and other forms of intangible culture. Copyright is admittedly an imperfect fit for combatting cultural appropriations – it is a porous form of protection, allowing some publicly beneficial uses of protected works without the consent of the copyright owner under certain exceptions, foremost being copyright’s fair use doctrine. This article evaluates fair use as a gate-keeping mechanism for unauthorized uses of culture. As codified in the 1976 Copyright Revision Act, the fair use doctrine’s four-part test is supposed to help fact finders determine whether an unauthorized use of another’s work is reasonable in light of copyright’s goals of promoting cultural production. But, while the fair use test has evolved to address questions about the purpose behind an appropriation, the amount and substance of the work used, and the effects of the appropriation on the market for the work, the vital inquiry about the “nature” of the original work and the impact of unauthorized appropriation on its creative environment has been all but forgotten by lower federal courts. Combining doctrinal analysis, settler-colonial theory, and ethnographic fieldwork involving ongoing appropriations of copyrightable Indigenous culture, this article shows how this “forgotten factor” in the fair use analysis is key to assessing the real impacts unauthorized appropriations have on culturally diverse forms of creativity. Thus, if we are committed to the development of creativity in all of its varieties and natures, a rehabilitation of the forgotten factor is both urgent and necessary.
Looks like important reading to me.
Here is the order in State of Alaska v. Federal Subsistence Board (D. Alaska):
Briefs are here.
“Thirty years after Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, only a fraction of human remains held by Texas’ museums and universities have been returned.”
Here.
Here:

NAGPRA: 30 Years and Beyond
Monday, Nov. 16
12:00-1:30 p.m. MST
Join us as we commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and explore new opportunities for building on this landmark legislation.
Guest speakers:
– Suzan Harjo (Cheyenne & Hodulgee Muscogee) – Writer/Curator/Policy Advocate/President, Morning Star Institute
– Shannon O’Loughlin (Choctaw) – Executive Director and Attorney, Association on American Indian Affairs
– James Riding In (Pawnee) – Founding Member and Associate Professor, American Indian Studies, Arizona State University
The State Bar of Arizona does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement. This activity may qualify for up to 1.0 hour toward your annual CLE requirement for the State Bar of Arizona.
Free webinar and open to the public.
Register for this free webinar at: law.asu.edu/nagpra
Here is the unpublished opinion in La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Reservation v. Trump.
Briefs are here.
Here are the briefs in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers:
Members of Congress Amicus Brief
States Against DAPL Amicus Brief
States Supporting DAPL Amicus Brief
Oral argument audio here.
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.