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.
The consumer alert is here.
Story from KATU is here (thanks to J.B.). An excerpt:
This woman’s case – and thousands like it – is now at the center of a legal battle at the highest levels of the U.S. Government –a story that’s taken us from Portland, to the halls of Congress, to a dusty town in Oklahoma – and deep into the pages of one of the murkiest chapters in America’s history. Millions of dollars hangs in the balance as the rights of you, the consumer, are pitted against the rights of all Native Americans.
Their treaties with the United States are century-old binding contracts upheld by numerous court decisions. But the issue of tribal sovereignty is taking center stage in the fight to stop online loan sharks.
Recent previous post here.
Here.
News coverage from WaPo. More detail from HuffPo.
I will note that at the end of oral argument one of the Ninth Circuit judges found part of the Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC’s opening brief “offensive,” “histrionic,” and “vituperative.” There was a “big frown face on the opening brief.” Lots of frustration in this case.
Here:
All Tribal Impact Report Final
From pechanga:
A new report says that Oklahoma’s 38 American Indian tribes have an annual economic impact of nearly $11 billion in the state. The study from Oklahoma City University’s Steven C. Agee Economic Research and Policy Institute found that more than 70 percent of the $10.8 billion impact comes from the tribes’ gambling operations.
Here are the materials so far in United States v. Nappi (W.D. N.Y.):
Here are the materials in Farmer Oil & Gas Properties v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe (D. Colo.):
DCT Order Granting Southern Ute Motion
Here.
Here is the complaint in Rothe Development, Inc. v. Dept. of Defense (D. D.C.):
An excerpt:
Congressional amendments in 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-272, § 18015, 100 Stat. 370) and 1988 (Pub. L. No. 100-656, § 207, 102 Stat. 3861, as amended by Pub. L. No. 101-37, § 6, 103 Stat. 72) also added “Indian tribes” and “Native Hawaiian Organizations” to the races deemed presumptively socially disadvantaged by 15 U.S.C. § 631(f)(1). However, ROTHE does not challenge the classifications “Indian tribes” and “Native Hawaiian Organizations” in this action. ROTHE understands the distinction in law drawn between “Native American” as a racial classification, on one hand, and an entity the United States has treaty or trust obligations towards, such as an “Indian tribe” or a “Native Hawaiian Organization” on the other. Cf. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (legislation that singles out federally recognized Indian tribes is Constitutional “where the preference is reasonable and rationally designed to further Indian self-government”). ROTHE is only challenging the racial classification of section 8(a), which by definition includes only those groups currently classified by law as being “racial” groups: Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities to be determined by the SBA (to date, Subcontinent Asian Americans).
Here are the updated materials:
Navajo Intervention and Motion to Dismiss post
Update: FINAL 2012-10-18 Dine C.A.R.E.,et al. v. Salazar Not. Supp. Auth.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.