Environmental

Blumm on Salmon and Climate Change

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Michael C. Blumm has posted “Salmon, Climate Change, and the Future,” forthcoming in the Environmental Law Reporter, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

This article examines salmon law and policy in the context of ongoing climate change. The article examines the nature of the threats that climate change poses and will continue to pose for salmon recovery, as well as possible legal responses to combat these threats. It also considers the future prospects of Pacific salmon in a world that will include significant climate change and other threats to preserving and equitably apportioning the salmon resource, whose environmental sensitivity and expansive life cycle will continue to pose substantial challenges for the foreseeable future. The Article is excerpted from “Pacific Salmon Law and the Environment: Treaties, Endangered Species, Dam Removal, Climate Change, and Beyond” (ELI Press 2022).

Washington Federal Court Rejects Teck Caminco Defenses in CERCLA Suit [Colville]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are newish materials in Pakootas v. Teck Caminco Metals (E.D. Wash.):

2504 Motion on Standing.pdfDownload
2506 Motion on Time-Barred Claims.pdfDownload
2533 Colville Response re Time-Barred Claims.pdfDownload
2538 Colville Response re Standing.pdfDownload
2549 Time-Barred Claims Reply.pdfDownload
2551 Standing Reply.pdfDownload
2565 DCT Order Denying Motion on Standing.pdfDownload
2566 DCT Order on Time-Barred Claims.pdfDownload

Interior Prevails in Post-McGirt Dispute with Oklahoma over Mining Regulation Jurisdiction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in State of Oklahoma v. Dept. of the Interior (W.D. Okla.):

106-dct-orderDownload

Briefs here.

House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Report on Pebble Mine

Matthew L.M. Fletcher
ti-committee-pebble-mine-report-and-appendix-1Download

Ninth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Tribal Wind Farm

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Backcountry Against Dumps v. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Backcountry Against Dumps v. Bureau of Indian Affairs [Campo Band Wind Energy Project]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Backcountry Opening Brief.pdfDownload
BIA Answer Brief.pdfDownload
Campo Band Answer Brief.pdfDownload
Development Co Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
Reply Brief.pdfDownload
Backcountry Supplemental Brief.pdfDownload
BIA Supplemental Brief.pdfDownload
Campo Band Supplemental Brief.pdfDownload
Development Co Supplemental Brief.pdfDownload

Lower court materials here.

Carter and Rotman on Surface Mining Regulation After McGirt

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Sam Carter and Robin Rotman have posted “Resurfacing Sovereignty: Who Regulates Surface Mining In Indian Country After McGirt?,” forthcoming in the Montana Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Following the decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), there has been a surge of litigation from the State of Oklahoma seeking to clarify the scope of the McGirt holding. While the Supreme Court of the United States was clear that the holding in McGirt was limited to criminal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act, it has sparked subsequent litigation regarding the scope of tribal authority. The pending case of State of Oklahoma v. United States Department of the Interior, which concerns surface mining regulation in Indian Country in Oklahoma, will test the application of McGirt outside of the criminal context. To this end, our article makes three recommendations: (1) in litigation concerning tribal lands, tribes should be a necessary party for litigation to proceed; (2) Congress should invest in pathways for tribes to build the capacity to create and manage their own programs, and (3) when tribal self-determination is encouraged and jurisdictional boundaries are clear, tribes can retain agency over their energy future and are less susceptible to the social harms that have been associated with the development of energy projects.

D.C. Federal Court Affirms Army Corps’ Approval of Enbridge Line 3 Permit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

52 Friends of the Headwaters MSJ

53-1 Tribes and Tribal Orgs MSJ

61-1 US Cross Motion

64 Enbridge Cross Motion

65 Tribal Reply

67 Friends Reply

69 US Reply

70 Enbridge Reply

90 DCT Order

Prior post here.

DALL-E rendition of the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Tribal Challenge to Seattle’s Dams

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the briefs in Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. City of Seattle:

Opening Brief.pdfDownload
Answer Brief.pdfDownload
Reply.pdfDownload
Appellant Supplemental Brief.pdfDownload
Appellee Supplemental Brief.pdfDownload

Lower court materials here.

I Don’t Know Why Indian Country Doesn’t Demand that Congress Pass the RESPECT Act because This Bullshit’s Gonna Keep Happening Until Then [Badger Two-Medicine]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Please see the strongly worded, if misguided, commentary from Judge Leon in Solonex v. Haaland, who sees 40 years of delay on a drilling permit and calls it “Kafkaesque.” It’s hard to disagree with that sentiment — though I wish the court were more understanding that tribal and Indian efforts to stop the drilling proposal began when there were virtually no legal protections for tribes and Native citizens to utilize. It’s time to acknowledge that this drilling should never have been approved over tribal and Indian objections and the RESPECT Act takes us a long way down the road to preventing this B.S. from happening over and over again.

Here is the order in Solonex LLC v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

181 DCT Order.pdfDownload

Prior post on the D.C. Circuit decision from which this case is on remand here.

Briefs:

156 Solonex MSJ.pdfDownload
162 Tribal Intervenors MSJ.pdfDownload
164 Interior MSJ.pdfDownload
168 Blackfeet Tribe Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
170 Solonex Reply.pdfDownload
175 Federal Reply.pdfDownload
176 Tribal Intervenors Reply.pdfDownload