Here:

Here is the order and accompanying, dueling opinions in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Dept. of the Interior.
En banc stage briefs:
Tribal Response to En Banc Petition
Panel materials here.

On April 1, 2026, the Indian Peaks Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition for Stay with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s March 2, 2026, approval of the Pine Valley Water Supply Project.

The filing seeks review of BLM’s decision authorizing a large‑scale groundwater extraction and pipeline project in southern Utah and asks the IBLA to stay the project approvals while the appeal is pending. The Band argues that the decision violates federal law, including the National Environmental Policy Act, and unlawfully threatens the Band’s federally reserved water rights and culturally significant resources.
You can see more here.
Kyle Whyte has posted “Recovering Scale for Climate Action: Indigenous Peoples, Nonanthropocentric Ethics, and Caretaking Institutions” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
Philosophers have widely debated and defended nonanthropocentric environmental ethics. However, nonanthropocentrism rarely features in philosophical climate ethics, which has been largely anthropocentric in focus. In contrast, Indigenous peoples throughout the world have offered a diverse array of arguments for climate action-arguments intent on achieving impact at scale-but that hinge on nonanthropocentric environmental ethics, often in relation to Indigenous peoples’ own institutions for taking care of the environment, or ‘caretaking institutions’. These arguments contain claims, based on nonanthropocentric ideas, about how climate action can be scaled up through Indigenous caretaking institutions. Additionally, one of the successful measures some Indigenous peoples have taken to scale up climate action is to carve out formal spaces in national and multilateral institutions for philosophizing about nonanthropocentric ethics and climate action. Climate ethicists should consider the contribution Indigenous peoples are making in developing nonanthropocentric ethics for climate action, both for developing philosophical approaches and for the actual mitigation of climate change ‘at scale’.


On April 1, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the Arizona Legislature’s challenge to Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. The decision leaves the monument in place and fully protected. You can see the decision here:
In September of 2024, the District Court denied, without prejudice, the Tribes’ motion to intervene in this case, finding the United States adequately represented the Tribes’ interests at that time. Here is that order:
The Ninth Circuit’s April 1 decision affirms the District Court decision dismissing the two consolidated cases filed against the Monument designation.
The National Monument protects thousands of historic and scientific objects, sacred places, vital water sources, and the ancestral homelands of many Indigenous Peoples. Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni lands include cultural and sacred places of the Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Moapa Band of Paiutes, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Navajo Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. The Monument receives its name from the Indigenous names given to the area by the Havasupai and Hopi. Baaj nwaavjo (BAAHJ – NUH-WAAHV-JOH) means “where Indigenous peoples roam” in the Havasupai language, and i’tah kukveni (EE-TAH – KOOK-VENNY) means “our ancestral footprints” in the Hopi language.
Learn More: Arizona Legislature v. Biden

Join us at MSU Law for Treaty Waters at Risk: Tribal Sovereignty and the Line 5 Challenge in the Great Lakes, a one-day conference on Friday, April 17, 2026, examining the legal and environmental stakes of energy infrastructure in treaty-protected waters.
Featuring a keynote by Whitney Gravelle, MSU Law and ILPC alumna and President of the Bay Mills Indian Community, the program brings together leading voices to discuss treaty rights, co-management, and the ongoing Line 5 conflicts at Bad River and the Straits of Mackinac.
Here:

Tribes in Michigan oppose Enbridge the Line 5 oil pipeline replacement plan, arguing the environmental risks to their traditional waters far outweigh any benefits. The proposal to replace the 70-year-old pipeline that currently runs through Michigan and Wisconsin has faced many legal challenges over the years. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the state or federal government should have say over how the project proceeds. The decision could set a precedent on how much power tribes and states have in regulating fossil fuel development. We’ll speak with tribal leaders, Native legal scholars, and others about what’s next for the ongoing Line 5 pipeline legal battle.
GUESTS
Wenona Singel (Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa), associate professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law and associate director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center
Elizabeth Arbuckle (Bad River), chairwoman of the Bad River Tribe
Melissa Kay, Tribal Water Institute fellow at the Native American Rights Fund
Here is the order in In re Ex parte Search Warrant Application IMO Environmental Protection Agency Administrative Inspection of Ute Tribal Land (D. Utah):

Mostyn Josty has published “Rivers of Sovereignty: The EPA’s New Water Quality Standards Rule as a Potential Channel for Revitalizing Tribal Reserved Water Rights” in the Cardozo Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
This Note explores the federal government’s evolving approach to its obligation to protect tribal reserved water rights through a case study of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2024 Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions to Protect Tribal Reserved Rights rule (the “WQS Rule”). It argues that while the WQS Rule represents a step forward in safeguarding tribal water rights, the legal challenge it faces underscores broader issues of federalism, administrative authority, and the country’s fluctuating commitment to tribal sovereignty. The Note examines the WQS Rule’s legal foundation, its potential challenges, and the implications for tribal self-determination, emphasizing the need for a more accountable and enforceable framework for tribal water protections.Additionally, this Note situates these legal developments within international human rights frameworks, suggesting that evolving global standards on Indigenous rights and water access could offer a more stable foundation for securing equitable water for reservations. Ultimately, this Note argues that regardless of the WQS Rule’s future, it is the underlying principle of the federal trust obligation and the need for lasting protections that must guide efforts to ensure Native Nations’ access to water.

Here are the materials in For Love of Water v. Michigan Public Service Commission:
Oral argument link:
https://youtu.be/bNRSAJCxap8?si=a76bpgyBDGBEf6FV
Briefs:
Here are the materials in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Michigan Public Service Commission:
Oral argument link: https://youtu.be/H8Y6RHgY9hM?si=wtafDSX7nuzeP3vs
Briefs:

You must be logged in to post a comment.