Here.
Background materials on the case here.
Here, on the FLOW site.
An excerpt:
The Anishinaabek, who are the Indigenous people from the Great Lakes area, are born with an innate sense of our connection to everything around us. We feel the connection between us and all things in creation, whether it’s people, plants, or animals. We feel it in everything that is part of our Mother, the Earth. There is knowledge about creation and how it fits together and in balance. It isn’t easily expressed into words, as it is a way of thinking and being. We, the Anishinaabek, understand that living in balance with all things is what we seek. As caretakers of the Earth, we use what we need and strive to ensure it is there for the next seven generations.
Here.
Here is the opinion in In re Contested Case:
392007050-hawaii-supreme-court-opinion-on-tmt.pdf
There is a dissent but that opinion will follow.
Here is the amended opinion in Havasupai Tribe v. Provencio. En banc petition denied.
En banc and rehearing briefs here:
Grand Canyon Trust En Banc Petition
Panel materials and other materials here.
Carla Fredericks, Kate Finn, Erica Gajda, and Jesse Heibel have published “Responsible Resource Development: A Strategic Plan to Consider Social and Cultural Impacts of Tribal Extractive Industry Development” in Harvard Journal of Law & Gender Online. Here.
Here is “‘We were here first’: Tribes say Line 5 pipeline tunnel ignores treaty rights.”
Michael C. Blumm & Jeffrey Litwak have posted “Democratizing Treaty Fishing Rights: Denying Fossil-Fuel Exports Projects in the Pacific Northwest,” forthcoming in the Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
Indian treaty fishing rights scored an important judicial victory recently when an equally divided U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the so-called “culverts case,” which decided that the Stevens Treaties of the 1850s give the tribes a right to protect salmon migration obstructed by barrier road culverts. The implications of that decision on other habitat damaging activities have yet to be ascertained, but even prior to the resolution of the culverts case there were significant indications that federal, state, and local administrative agencies were acting to protect treaty fishing rights from the adverse effects of large fossil-fuel export projects proposed throughout the Pacific Northwest. After briefly explaining the culverts decision, this article examines five recent examples of agencies denying permits for fossil-fuel developments at least in part of treaty rights grounds. We draw some lessons from these examples concerning the importance of tribal participation in administrative processes and explore some knotty evidentiary issues that tribal efforts to protect their historic fishing sites may entail. We conclude that safeguarding their treaty rights in the 21st century will require tribes to be as vigilant about the administrative process as they have been about seeking judicial protection.
Here.
Merits Briefs:
National Parks Conservation Association Amicus Brief
Alaska Native Subsistence Users Amicus Brief
Cert Stage Briefs:
Alaska Amicus Brief in Support of Cert Petition
Federal Brief in Opposition to Cert
Lower court materials:
Opinion in Sturgeon v. Masica.
Mentasta Traditional Village et al Brief
Materials in Sturgeon v. Frost I:
You must be logged in to post a comment.