Press Release: “Keweenaw Bay Indian Community stands 500 strong at Eagle Mine Court of Appeals Hearing”

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community stands 500 strong at Eagle Mine Court of Appeals Hearing (PDF)

For Release: June 5, 2014

Contact: Donald Shalifoe, Sr., Tribal President

Phone: 906-353-6623

Baraga, MI — About 500 members of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) KBIC Drummingstood united around the importance of keeping their waters clean from contamination associated with sulfide mining on June 3, 2014 at the Michigan Court of Appeals.  Oral arguments were heard involving the Eagle Mine, Michigan’s first permitted sulfide mine in the Upper Peninsula.

“This is the first time in our generation that the community as a whole came together to fight for true sovereignty and engage in spontaneous government participation.  The goal of the new moving-forward Tribal Council is to bring transparency and involvement to the Anishinaabeg (the people),” said Donald Shalifoe, Sr., KBIC’s Ogimaa (Chief).

Many tribal members carpooled and traveled about eight hours to line up for the 10:00 a.m. Lansing hearing.  KBIC’s remarkable presence overwhelmed the Michigan Hall of Justice whose staff reported it was their largest turn out ever for a court hearing.

Tribal leaders and elders observed the hearing from within the court room, while hundreds watched and listened to the proceedings in an overflow video conferencing room.  Traditional drumming and singing resounded outside the building following the hearing.

KBIC’s Vice President Carole LaPointe remarked “it was a very educational experience for our membership and youth.”

The Anishinaabeg band has opposed the Eagle Mine development, located on Treaty of 1842 ceded homeland, since it was first permitted by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) in 2006.

Unsettled concerns involve the mining regulatory process, improper permitting and inadequate assessment of impacts to the area environment, cultural resources and water quality, including groundwater contamination and the potential for perpetual acid mine drainage upstream from Lake Superior.

Tribal member Jeffery Loman said “the hearing today is another testimony to the fact that inadequate regulation and collusion between industry and government results in endless litigation.”

One aspect of the evolving case questions what qualifies as a “place of worship” under Michigan’s sulfide mining statute.  An initial ruling by Michigan Administrative Law Judge Richard Patterson recommended mitigation of impacts to an Anishinaabeg sacred place, Migi zii wa sin (Eagle Rock), but the MDEQ made a final permit decision asserting only built structures are places of worship.

Discriminatory enforcement of Michigan law has led to substantial degradation to KBIC’s sacred site.  This includes obtrusive mine facilities and a decline access ramp into the base of Eagle Rock, non-stop noise and activity, and hindered traditional access and use.  Spiritually significant high places like Eagle Rock are used in solitude by the Anishinaabeg for multi-day fasting, vision quest and ceremony.

Despite the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Native people still struggle to protect their remaining sacred places in the face of extractive development agendas.  “It is a shame that the United States of America, proudly founded upon values of religious freedom, has trouble guaranteeing this right to all of its nation’s first people,” said tribal member Jessica Koski.

KBIC anticipates a decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals within six months.  The Eagle Mine’s timeframe for production start-up is the end of 2014.  “While the court deliberates, it is important to remember that regardless of the outcome, we are in the right for standing up for the Yellow Dog Plains.  We hope the court understands their decision will have long lasting implications for this place, as well as other areas that are slated for mining,” said Emily Whittaker of Big Bay, Michigan who gathered alongside KBIC and other locally affected residents.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruling will be an important precedent for additional sulfide mining proposals threatening Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and waters of the Great Lakes.

 

###

Interior Moves to Dismiss Mackinac Tribe Suit for Federal Recognition

Here:

7-1 US Motion to Dismiss

Complaint here.

Michigan Withdraws Cert Petition in Michigan v. Sault Tribe

Here:

Ltr Clerk Withdraw 13-1372

Continue reading

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe Cert Opposition Brief

Here:

SSM Cert Opp Brief

Filed right before the decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills came out, so it doesn’t take that case’s outcome into consideration.

 

Grand Traverse Band Legal Dept. Job Posting

Tribal Attorney

Serve as a Tribal Attorney responsible for assisting with legal advice and services for the Grand Traverse Band Tribal Council on a wide range of legal issues. This position will be a regular full-time, in-house position, assisting the GTB Legal Staff. Detailed knowledge of Federal Indian Law and Tribal Law preferred. Native American preference will apply. Submit cover letter, resume and references to: Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians, Human Resources, 2605 NW Bay Shore Drive, Suttons Bay, MI 49682 or email: mike.teeple@gtbindians.com

Qualifications: Recent Graduate from an accredited law school or an Attorney with 1-2 years of experience.

Salary:         $55,000 – Recent Graduate

$60,000 – Upon passing the Bar Exam

$65,000 – $70,000 with 1-2 years of experience

Response Deadline:    June 30, 2014

Law & Society Indian Law Roundtable — Saturday, May 31, 2014

Kate Fort and Carrie Garrow organized a nice group of fabulous Indian law scholars, if we don’t say so ourselves, for the 2014 Law & Society meeting. Please join us!

Changing the Inequalities of Indian Law

Sat, 5/31: 10:15 AM  – 12:00 PM
0422
Roundtable Session
Saturday Session 2
University of St. Thomas
Room: MSL 235
This Roundtable looks at contemporary issues in both federal and tribal American Indian law. The fundamental inequalities surrounding federal Indian law will be engaged through discussions of ethics, statutory interpretation, sovereign responsibilities and constraints, and tribal customary law.

Chair

Carrie Garrow, Syracuse University College of Law

Discussant

Kathryn Fort, Michigan State University College of Law

Participant(s)

Kirsten Carlson, Wayne State University Law School
Matthew Fletcher, Michigan State University College of Law
Stephen Gasteyer, Michigan State University
Colette Routel, William Michell College of Law
Wenona Singel, Michigan State University College of Law
Victoria Sweet, Michigan State University College of Law

There are also other great panels at L&S:

Continue reading

NAISA Panel on Simon Pokagon

John Low, a Pokagon Band member, opened it up

20140529-174950-64190419.jpg

MSU Press is here displaying Simon’s novel

20140529-175055-64255988.jpg

Sixth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Second Saginaw Chippewa Member for DV

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Pego.This one is Samuel John Pego. We posted on the earlier appeal by Waylon Pego here.

National Native News Podcast; Includes Segment on Bay Mills

Here. Second story in the newscast.

Amy Howe at SCOTUSBlog on Bay Mills

Here, “Opinion details: Victory for Native American tribes . . . for now?

An excerpt:

The Court acknowledged the “apparent anomaly” in the law:  although states can sue tribes for illegal gaming activity on Indian lands, they cannot sue them for the same activity off Indian lands.  “But,” the Court continued, “this Court does not revise legislation . . . just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address.”  And – significantly – even if the state can’t sue a tribe for off-reservation illegal gaming, it still “has many other powers over tribal gaming that it does not possess (absent consent) in Indian territory.”  Most state laws will apply to Indians off reservation, for example:  Michigan “could, in the first instance, deny a license” for an off-reservation casino; if the tribe went ahead with the project anyway, it could sue tribal officials to stop the gaming activity and, if necessary, invoke its criminal laws.  Moreover, states also could seek a waiver to allow lawsuits for off-reservation gaming activity as part of its compact with the tribe regarding on-reservation gaming.