Here is the 2-1 opinion in State of Wyoming v. EPA:
Briefs here.
Environmental
PBS: “Native Americans brace for impact as EPA undergoes changes”
Here.
Monte Mills: “How will Native tribes fight the Dakota Access Pipeline in court?”
Here, at PBS.
An excerpt:
Although the details of those arguments will be complex, as a legal scholar focused on Native American law I see the case addressing an essential question at the heart of our legal system: namely, how does federal law and judicial process protect the fundamental values and structure of the Constitution?
CRST’s Request for a Temporary Restraining Order against DAPL is Denied
There are a lot of moving parts on the legal side of the NoDAPL fight. This latest is in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 16-cv-01534, which was started in July. Those initial materials are here. Most recently in that case, the intervenor-plaintiff tribe, Cheyenne River Sioux, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. Yesterday there was a hearing on the motion and the judge ruled from the bench:
MINUTE ORDER: As discussed at today’s status hearing, the Court ORDERS that: 1) CRST’s 99 TRO Application is DENIED; 2) Dakota Access shall provide an update on February 21, 2017, and every Monday thereafter as to the likely date that oil will begin to flow beneath Lake Oahe; 3) The Court will hold a hearing on CRST’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on February 27, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.; 3) Oppositions to such Motion shall be due by February 21, 2017, with any Reply due by February 24, 2017; 4) SRST’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment shall be filed by February 14, 2017, with Oppositions due by March 7, 2017, and any Reply due by March 21, 2017; 5) The Government may have a two-week extension to oppose Dakota Access’s Motion for Protective Order; and 6) Defendants may have a 30-day extension to respond to the Tribes’ Motions to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 2/13/2017. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
The motion for a preliminary injunction the judge references is here.
As we posted yesterday, Oglala Sioux has also filed a lawsuit against the Army Corps (Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 17-cv-00267), which has been assigned to the same judge.
Oglala Sioux Tribe Suit against Army Corps
Here is the complaint in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):
An excerpt:
This is a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the construction and operation of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) until the Defendant United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) completes an environmental impact statement (EIS) that fully analyzes the impacts of the DAPL to the Tribe’s Treaty rights and rights in the Mni Wiconi Project as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA).
Standing Rock Denounces Army Easement Announcement, Vows Court Challenge
Download(PDF): Press Release
Next steps for Tribe and allies:
- The Tribe will challenge any easement decision on the grounds that the EIS was
wrongfully terminated. The Tribe will demand a fair, accurate and lawful environmental impact statement to identify true risks to its treaty rights, including its water supply and sacred places. - The Tribe has asked the court for DAPL to disclose its oil spill and risk assessment
records for full transparency and review by the public. - If DAPL is successful in constructing and operating the pipeline, the Tribe will seek to
shut the pipeline operations down. - A Native Nations march on Washington is scheduled for March 10. The Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe and tribes across the country invite allies in America and from around the
world to join the march.
NYTs: “Guardians of a Vast Lake, and a Refuge for Humanity”
Here.
Citing Religious Freedom Act, CRST Requests TRO Against DAPL
Olgala Sioux Tribe President’s Press Release on Granting of DAPL Easement
Hoopa and Yurok Tribes Prevail in ESA Litigation
Link: Federal Court Protects Klamath Salmon, Tribal and Fishing Communities (Earthjustice), previous post
Materials and briefs in the matter of Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America et al, 16-cv-04294 (N.D. Cali.):
- 33 Federal Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay
- 69-1 Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Injunctive Relief
- 88 Federal Defendants’ Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record and Strike Extra Record Evidence
- 102 Order Re Motions for Summary Judgment, Motions to Strike, and Motion to Dismiss
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.