cultural resources

Goshute Indian Tribe Appeals BLM Gold Mine Approval, Massive Destruction of Cultural Artifacts

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Press release here:

Today the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation announced it has filed an appeal of the BLM’s April 7, 2015 Record of Decision approving Newmont Mining Company’s Long Canyon Mine east of Wells, Nevada, and located in the heart of the Tribe’s archaeological cultural area.  The massive open-pit mine would permanently destroy or remove thousands of Tribal cultural resources.

“The Long Canyon Mine area is a vitally important part of our cultural history and its destruction will erase a critical part of who we are as a people,” said Zelda Johnny, a Tribal Cultural Monitor and Tribal Council Vice-Chair.

The 45-page Tribal appeal is supported by documents showing the BLM refused to share known information about Tribal cultural items in the area and that the BLM insisted the Tribe waive legal claims in order to have access to the BLM’s Tribal information.

“How can our Tribe evaluate the impact of this proposed mine when the BLM would not give us access to the information about our historical ties to the site?” said Tribal Chairwoman Madeline Greymountain.

The administrative appeal is a required first step in the appeal process.  “The Tribe is committed to forcing the BLM to follow the law and allow the Tribe a full and fair opportunity to participate in the federal review process before this special place and tribal artifacts are permanently destroyed forever.  The BLM has failed its trust responsibility in this case,” said Paul Echo Hawk, Tribal Attorney.

For more information on April 7, 2015 Record of Decision and Long Canyon Mine Project:

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/elko_field_office.html

Appeal materials here:

2015-05-05 Declaration of Paul Echo Hawk in Support of Statement of Reasons and Petition for Stay – Filed

2015-05-05 Notice of Appeal and Statement of Reasons – Filed

2015-05-05 Petition for Stay – Filed

Controversy over Makah Treaty Whaling Rights Brewing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Sea Shepherd Announces Revival of Campaign Against Makah Treaty Rights.”
An excerpt:

From the beginning some opponents of Makah whaling engaged in behavior and used rhetoric that can contribute to anti-Indian bigotry and undermine the legitimacy of treaty rights. Some spread misinformation about treaty rights, as when the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society falsely claimed in 2005 that the Treaty of Neah Bay had been abrogated. Sea Shepherd echoed the rhetoric of the organized anti-Indian movement, declaring erroneously that upholding Makah treaty rights would be “tantamount to extra special rights for a group of people based on race and/or culture.” Anti-Indian activists use this same language in their quest to terminate tribal governments and abrogate all treaties. Sea Shepherd, Project Seawolf, Australians for Animals and other groups allied their cause with then-U.S. Representative Jack Metcalf (R-WA). Metcalf (now deceased) was a leader in the anti-Indian movement who maintained a firm foot in the politics of organized white supremacy. Anti-Makah groups have lobbied, litigated and engaged in direct action, including harassing Makah whalers and the tribal community.

Seventh Circuit Rules in Favor of Navajo Inmate on Religious Freedom Claim

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Schlemm v. Wall.

And a release from Huy.

The Commerce Clause Argument against the Washington Football Team’s Nickname

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Racial Slurs Shouldn’t Be Trademarked:The Washington football team’s name is an obstacle for interstate commerce,” by Robert Tsai and Christine Haight Farley.

An excerpt:

But one argument the DOJ makes only tepidly deserves far greater emphasis: In regulating commerce, Congress has the power—and perhaps even an obligation—to confront pervasive forms of inequality. As the DOJ explains, trademark law “prevents a mistaken perception of official endorsement of insult and calumny.” Yet the power to deny state approval goes further than that: It implicates the very idea of democratic self-governance. Disparaging marks can foster corrosive cultural stereotypes on the basis of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Left entirely unregulated, the market would become the engine for perpetuating, and even entrenching, illiberal values.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Interior Withdrawal of Grand Canyon Lands from Uranium Mining

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the opening briefs in National Mining Assn. v. Jewell:

16 – Open Brief – no Addendum (Quaterra)

18 – Open Brief & Addendum (NMA)

20 – Open Brief (AEMA)

29 – Utah, AZ, NV, MT – Amicus in Favor of Reversal

Yount 9th Circuit Informal Appeal 

US Brief

Tribal Amicus

Navajo Amicus

Intervenors Response Brief 

Lower court order here; briefs here. Other materials here.

White Earth Nation Moves for Summary Judgment in Challenge to Two Oil Pipelines

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the motion in White Earth Nation v. Kerry (D. Minn.):

71 Motion for Summary J

We posted the complaint here.

Indigenous activists among those killed worldwide for protecting the environment.

Ann Tweedy

Here’s the BBC article.

US and Industry Defeat Challenge to Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon Mine

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams (D. Ariz.):

140-1 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary J

146-1 US Motion for Summary J

147-1 Intervenors Motion for Summary J

151 Plaintiffs Reply

155 US Reply

156 Intervenors Reply

166 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This case arises out of the proposed renewal of operations at the Canyon Mine in Northern Arizona. The Canyon Mine is a breccia pipe uranium mine located six miles south of Grand Canyon National Park, in the Kaibab National Forest, and four miles north of Red Butte, a culturally and religiously significant site for the Havasupai and other tribes.

Alaska COA Rejects Yup’ik Free Exercise Defense to Criminal Prosecution for Salmon Fishing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion:

Phillip v. State

An excerpt:

In June 2012, the thirteen defendants in this case — all Yup’ik fishermen living a subsistence lifestyle — were charged with violating the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s emergency orders restricting fishing for king salmon on the Kuskokwim River. The defendants moved for dismissal of the charges, asserting that their fishing for king salmon was religiously based activity, and that they were entitled to a religious exemption from the emergency orders under the free exercise clause of the Alaska Constitution.

Briefs are here.

Yakama/Umatilla Prevail against Fish and Wildlife Service in Sacred Sites Question

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Fish and Wildlife Service (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

49 Umatilla Motion for Summary J

50 Yakama Motion for Summary J

52 FWS Motion for Summary J

54 Yakama Reply

55 Umatilla Response

56 FWS Reply

60 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Although the NHPA and its accompanying regulations do not mandate a particular substantive outcome, its procedural requirements are obligatory. This Court would be derelict in its duties if it failed to enforce the minimal procedural protections guaranteed the Tribes. True, the Service, after reopening consultation with the parties, may reasonably conclude that the expanded program of wildflower tours will have no adverse effect on the Lalíik TCP. But this hypothetical cannot influence the Court’s current analysis. Instead, the relevant focus is whether the Service complied with the relevant statute and regulations: did the Service “stop, look, listen,” and carefully consider tribal input before moving ahead with the greatly expanded undertaking? Or, instead, did the Service stop, look at past tribal consultations on similar proposals, and inappropriately assume that each Tribe would merely voice its blanket opposition rather than providing additional insight to or suggested mitigation measures for the expanded undertaking? Because this Court concludes the latter occurred here, the only remedy is to set aside the Agency’s no adverse effect finding on the updated proposal and order the Service to reengage in the consultation process before conducting any additional wildflower tours within the Lalíik TCP, if it still chooses to pursue the undertaking.