Here is the order:
DCT Order Denying Navajo Motion to Dismiss
Briefs are here.
Here:
No Conference date has been set for this petition.
Ryan Dreveskrachthas published “Alternative Energy in American Indian Country: Catering to Both Sides of the Coin” in the Energy Law Journal. Here is the synopsis:
This article looks at both sides of the renewable energy “coin” in relation to American Indian country. On the one side, it appears that tribal governments are opposed to any energy development on their lands. All told, however, this couldn’t be further from the truth – tribes merely seek a seat at the table when decisions are made regarding developments that will adversely affect their lands and/or areas of cultural significance. Indeed, contrary to being opposed to alternative energy development, tribes are very actively seeking to develop their lands in a manner that is consistent with their cultures and traditions. But, large-scale alternative energy projects are virtually absent from Indian country. This article argues that the oft-overlooked other side of the renewable energy “coin” are the federal regulations that hinder these projects from coming to fruition. The final section of the article will discuss what Congress is – and is not – doing regarding the two sides of this “coin.”
Here are the briefs in Quantum Entertainment Inc. v. Dept. of Interior:
Lower court materials here.
Bill Maurer and Justice Richland have posted their paper, “Lex Llewellyn and the Tribal Tax Status Act: ‘Fallible Gropings’ in Law and Society,” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
This article is the result of our inquiry into two proximate fields in which issues of law, custom and markets arise in sociolegal scholarship and praxis: the mid-20th century jurisprudence of the legal realist Karl Llewellyn and the contemporary debates surrounding efforts by tribal governments in the U.S. to issue tax-exempt bonds. Both are sites for efforts by legal scholars and practitioners to grapple with the convergence of social categories that, until very recently, are normally held apart – Native Americans, law, and commerce. We first explore Llewellyn’s efforts at drafting the Uniform Commercial Code, and the extent to which in this and his The Cheyenne Way (written at virtually the same time), he drew considerable influence from the American pragmatist philosophical tradition. In so doing, we find that his jurisprudence and lawmaking (often maligned for its circular reasoning) can be better understood as an effort to announce a philosophy of law and enact commercial legislation that was more a method for doing legal analysis and taking legal action than it was an expression of legal principles. Once understood in this way, we suggest it offers a fresh way of accounting for the performative force of law that can move sociolegal research beyond certain constructivist impasses. We then offer how such an approach can be brought to bear on the unfolding relationships among custom, law and commerce in the back and forth between scholars, law-makers, and tribal leaders around tribal tax-exempt bonds and their regulation.
Probably the most important article on fracking in Indian country so far.
Raymond Cross has published “Development’s Victim or Its Beneficiary?: The Impact of Oil and Gas Development on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation” in the North Dakota Law Review.
Here is the opinion and materials in Miller v. Wright.
The court’s syllabus:
Affirming the district court’s dismissal of an antitrust action brought by cigarette vendors challenging taxes imposed by virtue of the authority vested in an Indian tribe, the panel held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in light of the tribe’s sovereign immunity. The panel held that the tribe did not implicitly waive its sovereign immunity by agreeing to dispute resolution procedures nor by ceding its authority to Washington State when entering into a cigarette tax contract. The panel also held that federal antitrust law did not explicitly abrogate tribal immunity, and the Sherman Antitrust Act was not a law of general applicability vis-a-vis the tribe. The panel held that tribal officials were protected by the tribe’s sovereign immunity because they acted pursuant to the tribe’s authority. The panel also affirmed the district court’s alternative ruling that the action was barred by res judicata in light of prior litigation in state and tribal courts.
Here are the briefs:
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.