Ninth Circuit Briefs in Oklevueha Native American Church v. Holder

Here:

Oklevueha Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

National Council of Native American Churches et al. Amicus Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here. And here.

Prior Ninth Circuit materials here.

Univ. of Minnesota Takes Stand Against Use of Washington Pro Football Team’s Nickname

Wow! Go Gophers!

Why does this matter? The NFL Vikings are playing at U of M’s stadium while their new stadium is under construction.

Here is MPR’s coverage: “U of M opposed to use of Redskins name at TCF Bank Stadium.”

FINAL Report to U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Re: American Indigenous Prisoners’ Religious Rights

Here:

8-1-14 Supplemental Joint Submission By Huy NCAI USET NARF ACLU et al to U N Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Re American Indi

Center for American Progress Report on American Indian Mascots

Here is “Missing the Point: The Real Impact of Native Mascots and Team Names on American Indian and Alaska Native Youth:” StegmanAIANmascots-reportv2

An excerpt:

Although the debate over the Washington football team may rage on until either the NFL or the team’s owner, Dan Snyder, finally does the right thing and changes the name, there are many things that can be done right now to support AI/AN students in schools that perpetuate harmful stereotypes. Instead of debating merchandise economics and fan sentimentality, it is time to get to the point in this debate and to stop the harm that racist mascots and team names do to AI/AN youth.

Report to U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Re: American Indigenous Prisoners’ Religious Rights

Here:

7-25-14 Joint Submission By Huy, NCAI, NARF, ACLU et al to U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Re American Indigenous Prisoners’ Religious Rights

7-25-14 Letter to Native Nations & Advocacy Groups re Supplemental Report

Federal Judge will no Longer Use Washington Football Team’s Nickname

From WSJ, here.

The opinion is here.

Oral Argument Scheduled in Yount v. Jewell — Challenge to Secretarial Withdrawal of Lands Around Grand Canyon on Establishment Grounds

Here is the order in Yount v. Jewell (D. Ariz.):

227 Oral Argument Order

Briefs here. Prior post here.

 

 

TransCanada’s South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Permit to Build KeystoneXL Expires

Here, “With one more nail in its coffin, is Keystone XL history?”

Complaint Challenging New 30-Year Eagle Permit Rule

Here is the complaint in Shearwater v. Ashe (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs are challenging a final nationwide regulation promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS” or “Service”) and the U.S. Department of the Interior (“DOI”) on December 9, 2013 that “extend[ed] the maximum term for programmatic permits” to kill or otherwise “take” bald and golden eagles from five years to thirty years. 78 Fed. Reg. 73704. This major rule change – the “thirty-year eagle take rule” – applies to industrial activities of all Case5:14-cv-02830 Document1 Filed06/19/14 Page1 of 23 kinds that incidentally take federally protected eagles in the course of otherwise lawful activities
but, as acknowledged by the Service, was promulgated specifically to respond to the wind power industry’s desire to facilitate the expansion of wind energy projects in areas occupied by eagles. Id. at 73709. However, the rule was adopted in flagrant violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370f (“NEPA”) because the Service did not prepare any document analyzing the environmental impacts of the rule change, as required by NEPA and its implementing regulations. In addition, the rule change violates the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d (“BGEPA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), because the rule subverts the basic eagle protection purposes of BGEPA and eliminates crucial procedural and other safeguards for eagle populations without any adequate explanation. Accordingly, the regulation should be vacated and remanded to Defendants for compliance with federal law.

 

538 on Impact of Washington Football Team Trademark Decision on National Electoral Politics

In short, virtually none.

Here.