Here is the opinion in In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace and Relocate Line 5 [Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Michigan Public Service Commission].

Here is the opinion in In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace and Relocate Line 5 [Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Michigan Public Service Commission].

Here is the complaint in Lytton Rancheria of California v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

Lauren van Schilfgaarde has posted “American Cultural Heritage’s Embrace of Tribal Cultural Heritage,” published in the Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
Historically, Tribal cultural heritage has been conceptualized as fundamentally distinct from American cultural heritage. Consequently, Tribal cultural heritage has received only piecemeal protection under the typical American cultural heritage law framework. However, as Tribal advocates have pressed for protections of Tribal cultural heritage, they have influenced the ways in which American cultural heritage law is interpreted and implemented. There has been accordingly, a recent shift in how American cultural heritage law values and identifies Tribal cultural heritage law as fundamentally American— and with it, a promising embrace of Indigenous rights. This essay will explore that shift, noting two of the most recent developments—the 2023 NAGPRA regulations and the STOP Act of 2021, and the need for more institutionalized protection, predominately protections for confidentiality.

Here the materials in Hualapai Indian Tribe v. Haaland (D. Ariz.):
72 Arizona Lithium Post-Hearing Brief
74 Hualapai Post-Hearing Brief
Complaint is here.

Here is the complaint in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

You must be logged in to post a comment.