Oral argument (sadly no food fights):
Briefs:
Canada Amicus Brief — BOO! Canada

Delaney Kelly has published ““We Stand With the Water”: Ojibwe Treaty Rights, the Walleye Wars, and the Imminent Threat of Enbridge’s Line 5” in the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law.
Here is the abstract:
Enbridge Energy’s crude oil pipeline, known as Line 5, currently poses a serious threat to the vitality of the Bad River in Wisconsin and the Great Lakes more broadly. Its construction threatens centuries old treaty rights of Ojibwe nations. Line 5 has been the subject of protest and extensive legal action over the past decade. This Note analyzes the legal claims leveraged by various Ojibwe nations against Enbridge. First, it considers the history of the Ojibwe people in the Midwest region and the treaties forged between the United States and Ojibwe leaders, which enshrined rights to hunt, fish, and gather on both reservation and ceded territory. Then, it analyzes the attempted forced removal of the Ojibwe by the federal government, despite these treaties. Next, it details early twentieth century criminalization of the exercise of the right to hunt, fish, and gather, and the legal battle to exercise those reserved rights. Then, it discusses the Walleye Wars of the late twentieth century. Finally, this Note describes how the contemporary legal battle against Enbridge’s Line 5 builds upon this legacy, arguing that the environmental threat posed by the pipeline inhibits the ability to exercise reserved treaty rights, and threatens the vitality of the land.

Here is the complaint in Village of Dot Lake v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Alaska):

Here are the applications for leave to appeal in In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace & Relocate Line 5:
Application for Leave to Appeal
Lower court materials here.

The Headwaters Report – is a new digital blog site, bulletin, and source for Tribal water law information and resources. The Headwaters Report presents accessible information on foundational Tribal water law concepts and practices as well as current and emerging water-related issues.
The first article focuses on the Clean Water Act, a 50-year-old law that, among other things, allows Tribes to assert regulatory jurisdiction over water quality and activities that impact water quality within reservation boundaries. In our next Report update, we plan to address the changes the Trump Administration is attempting to make to the Clean Water Act and how that may affect Tribal Nations.
In the Report you will also find several slide decks on Tribal water rights information, including one on the basics of Tribal water rights, general stream adjudications, and Indian water rights settlements. We intend The Headwaters Report to act not only as a clearinghouse for Tribal water law and policy information, but as a place to bring questions and to get guidance.
Here are the materials in the consolidated cases, Makah Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobile Corp. (W.D. Wash.) and Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobile Corp. (W.D. Wash.):

Here are the materials so far in Village of Dot Lake v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Alaska):
11-1 Federal Motion to Dismiss

Jason Robison has posted “Equity Along the Yellowstone,” published in the University of Colorado Law Review, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
As one of three major rivers with headwaters in the sublime Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the Yellowstone and its tributaries are subject to an interstate compact (a.k.a. “domestic water treaty”) litigated from 2007 to 2018 in the U.S. Supreme Court in Montana v. Wyoming. Four tribal nations exist within the 71,000 square‑mile Yellowstone River Basin: the Crow, Eastern Shoshone, Northern Arapaho, and Northern Cheyenne. Yet, the Yellowstone River Compact, ratified in 1951, more than a decade before the self‑determination era of federal Indian policy began, neither affords these tribal sovereigns representation on the Yellowstone River Compact Commission nor clearly addresses the status of their water rights within (or outside) the compact’s apportionment. Such marginalization is systemic across Western water compacts. Devised as alternatives to original actions for equitable apportionment before the U.S. Supreme Court, this Article focuses on the Yellowstone River Compact and its stated purpose of “equitable division and apportionment,” reconsidering the meaning of “equity,” procedurally and substantively, from a present‑day perspective more than a half‑century into the self‑determination era. Equity is a pervasive and venerable norm for transboundary water law and policy contends the Article, and equity indeed should be realized along the Yellowstone in coming years, both by affording the basin tribes opportunities to be represented alongside their federal and state co‑sovereigns on the Yellowstone River Compact Commission, as well as by clarifying the status of and protecting the basin tribes’ water rights under the compact’s apportionment.

You must be logged in to post a comment.