cultural resources

Narragansett NHPA Consultation Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Federal Highway Administration (D.R.I.):

1-complaint-2.pdf

An excerpt:

The Tribe brings this action to challenge the termination of a programmatic agreement(“PA”) entered into pursuant to the regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”). The termination of the PA occurred after substantial construction had taken place on the project for which the PA was meant to address and resolve the adverse effects of the project on historic properties to the signatories’ satisfaction. The termination of the PA after substantial work had been performed on the project, and the subsequent final decision of the Federal Highway Association (“FHWA”) was arbitrary and capricious.

WaPo: “‘A very deep kind of patriotism’: Memorial to honor Native American veterans is coming to the Mall”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Michigan AG Opinion: Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority Law is Unconstitutional [Line 5 — Good news!]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Oklahoma American Indian Arts and Crafts Sales Act of 1974 Struck Down [definition of “Indian” more restrictive than federal law]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Fontenot v. Hunter (W.D. Okla.):

1 Complaint

33 Ps Motion for Summary Judgment

35 Oklahoma Motion for Summary Judgment

39 Ps Response

41 State Response

42 State Reply

43 Ps Reply

47 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Although the Court rejects Plaintiff’s challenges under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as those under the dormant Commerce Clause and the First Amendment, the Court finds for the foregoing reasons that Plaintiff has shown that Oklahoma’s American Indian Arts and Crafts Sales Act of 1974, as amended, Okla. Stat. tit. 78, §§ 71-75, violates the United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and is therefore unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to her.

 

Havasupai Tribe v. Provencio Cert Petition [Grand Canyon Mine; NHPA Consultation]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

cert-petition-1.pdf

Question presented:

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 54 U.S.C. § 306108, requires federal agencies to consult with Indian tribes and other interested parties to assess and mitigate the potential adverse impacts that a project requiring federal approval may have on sites of historic and cultural significance.

The question presented here is whether the NHPA imposes a continuing obligation upon federal agencies to engage in consultation under Section 106 when an agency maintains supervision of an ongoing project, and has the opportunity to require changes to mitigate adverse impacts after the initial approval.

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Motions Panel Denies TransCanada’s Motion for Stay in Challenge to Keystone XL Pipeline

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Indigenous Environmental Network v. Dept. of State:

ca9-order-denying-motion-for-stay.pdf

Briefs:

transcanada-motion-for-stay.pdf

indigenous-environmental-network-opposition.pdf

northern-plains-opposition.pdf

fort-peck-amicus-brief.pdf

transcanada-reply.pdf

Anderson and Krakoff Bears Ears Op Ed

Ann Tweedy

Here.

Reviews of Nick Estes’ “Our History Is the Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

NPR

The Intercept

HNN

The book webpage from Verso is here.

South Dakota Preparing to Kill Free Speech on Behalf of Pipeline Companies

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From High Country News, here is “South Dakota pushes bills to prosecute ‘riot-boosting’ ahead of pipeline construction.”

High Country News: “Is a new copyright law a ‘colonization of knowledge’?”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.