cultural resources – Page 39

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”

March 31, 2019March 31, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

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

March 29, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

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

March 29, 2019March 29, 2019Matthew 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

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]

March 28, 2019Matthew 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.