Federal Court Refuses to Allow N. Arapaho Tribe to Add Establishment Clause Claim to Eagle Act Regulatory Dispute

Here are the new materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Ashe (D. Wyo.):

DCT Order Denying Motion

N. Arapaho Motion to File Second Amended Complaint

USFWS Opposition

N. Arapaho Reply

An excerpt:

With these principles in mind, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion because they waited too long to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs knew or should have known the facts underlying an Establishment Clause claim when they filed their amended complaint nearly a year ago. And Plaintiffs undoubtedly knew about the Establishment Clause claim by May 31, 2012, because on that date they filed a memorandum stating that “[d]efendants’ denial of the [tribe’s] permit application creates Establishment Clause problems.” Pls.’ Mem. 14 n.19, ECF No. 30. Yet Plaintiffs waited over eight months from the time they clearly knew about the Establishment Clause claim to file the present motion. That’s simply too long a wait. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint (ECF No. 59) based on undue delay.

Our prior post on this case is here.

Federal Court Rejects Quechan Tribe Effort to Shut Down Ocotillo Express Wind Power Operation

Here are the materials in Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation v. United States Department of the Interior (S.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Granting Ocotillo Motion

Federal Motion for Summary J

Ocotillo Express Motion for Summary J

Quechan Motion for Summary J

*** Quechan Declaration

News Profile of USFWS Decisionmaking Process in Question of Bald Eagles and Wind Turbines

Here.

An excerpt:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is considering eliminating most public oversight of wind turbine impacts on protected bald and golden eagles by offering developers 30-year permits to kill eagles by accident, as opposed to the current 5-year permits. What’s more, they’re shaping the implementation of that proposed policy change in a series of private “stakeholders'” meetings to which the public is not invited.

American Bird Conservancy letter here.

National Museum of American Indians Symposium on Racist Stereotypes and Cultural Appropriations in Sports — In Entirety

YouTube has all six hours in three parts.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Description of the symposium:

In this day-long symposium sports writers, scholars, authors, and representatives from sports organizations engaged in lively panel discussions on racist stereotypes and cultural appropriation in American sports.

The symposium explores the mythology and psychology of sports stereotypes and mascots, and examines the retirement of “Native American” sports references and collegiate efforts to revive them despite the NCAA’s policy against “hostile and abusive” nicknames and symbols.

Description of each part. Continue reading

Federal Court Dismisses Navajo Claims to Remains from Canyon de Chelly Taken by National Park Service

Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of Interior (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order Dismissing Navajo Complaint

Interior Motion to Dismiss Navajo Complaint

Navajo Response

Interior Reply

An excerpt:

Having considered the parties’ memoranda in light of the relevant record, the Court finds that the motion should be granted to the extent that the Court finds that this action is barred at this time by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Our prior post on this suit, including complaint, is here.

Poarch Band Motion to Dismiss Muscogee Creek Suit

Here.

Michigan Civil Rights Commission to File Discrmination Complaint with U.S. Dept. of Education over Indian Sports Names and Mascots

From the MCRC:

Later this morning, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights will file a complaint with the United States Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights (OCR) on behalf of all present and future students who are, are descended from, or otherwise self-identify as American Indians.  This complaint asks OCR to order an end to the use of American Indian mascots, names, terms, graphics and/or other imagery as a violation of equal protection for primary and secondary students.

Here are the materials:

MDCR_2-8-13_Discrimination_Complaint

MDCR_2_8_13_Supporting_Argument

MDCR_2-8-13_Appendix_A_-_References

MDCR_2-8-13_Appendix_B_-_Schools

Continue reading

International Treaty to Protect the Sacred from Tar Sands Projects

Text here. Video here.

Legal analysis on the import of the treaty from the international law scholars at Opinio Juris, here. An excerpt:

Beyond the U.S. law, there’s also a fairly interesting issue of how international law regards this sort of treaty-making.  As I’ve written previously, international law imposes two conditions on treaty-making by a sub-national actor:  (1) explicit treaty-making authority from the State of which it is a component part (whether ex-ante or ex-post); and (2) the consent of potential treaty-partners to the sub-national actors’ participation in the treaty itself.  Here, it seems we have a willing group of treaty partners, so the treaty seems OK on the second element (that is, assuming the Canadian First Nations are themselves authorized to make treaties under Canadian law).  Still, there are questions as to whether the United States has to authorize this treaty, whether it has done so (or will need to do so going forward), and why it would ever do so when the treaty’s objective would be to lobby and/or constrain federal government behavior.  Now, there is an argument that, as indigenous peoples, Native American tribes should not be subject to the standard rules for treaty-making by sub-national actors (indeed, Article 36(1) of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights makes just such a claim).  But, the United States was one of four nations to object to that Declaration (along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand), so I’m hard pressed to see it getting traction in this case, especially where the treaty involves an alliance of indigenous peoples to oppose federal licensing efforts (and with it perhaps some key aspects of U.S. energy policy).

As such, I think the ball is now firmly in the Obama Administration’s court.  I’m interested to see how it responds to this treaty (including, which Agency takes the lead in responding to it).  I suppose silence is a possible course of action.  But, if the federal government remains silent, I think that might lead to arguments of U.S. tacit approval for this treaty in particular, and even more broadly, a right of treaty making with foreign powers for U.S. Native American tribes.

For a primer on intertribal treaty making, see Wenona Singel’s Indian Tribes and Human Rights Accountability (email me if you want a pdf).

Bishop Colony’s Stolen Petroglyphs Recovered

Here.

We posted about this a few months back.

News Coverage of “Zero Tolerance” for Bison in Montana

Here.