Navajo Nation Hosts First Public Safety Summit in 15 Years

Download(PDF): Press Release

Pictures:

Navajo Nation Public Safety Summit

Navajo Nation Public Safety Summit

 

Justice Sotomayor on Diversity at Michigan Law School (and all law schools)

Here is “Justice Sotomayor says lack of black students at UM ‘a real problem.'” HT How Appealing.

An excerpt:

“We are making large improvement towards that kind of equality, but we’re still far from it when you look at the number of African Americans at the University of Michigan, there’s a real problem there,” Sotomayor said.

 

NYTs Profile of One Mind Youth Movement

Here is “The Youth Group That Launched a Movement at Standing Rock.”

Michael Nutter: “President Trump, we know what you’re up to”

Here

Lowering the Bar: “Bill Would Provide Immunity for Accidentally Running Over Protesters”

Here.

An excerpt:

Seems doubtful this would be constitutional if it were to pass (and no one else quoted in the report seemed too enthused about it). By his own admission, the bill is a response to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, and so (although the language itself is neutral) it is arguably a content- or even viewpoint-based restriction because the intent is to deter a certain kind of speech. If so, it would be subject to strict scrutiny and almost certainly struck down. (Note that it doesn’t require the “obstructing” to be illegal, so far as I can tell.) Even if you consider it content-neutral, it would still have to pass the rational-basis test. And it’s hard to see what the rational basis for this would be, or at least I can think of reasons it’s irrational.

The Hill: “Trump hangs portrait of Andrew Jackson in Oval Office”

Here.

ACLU: “President Trump Says the Dakota Access Pipeline ‘Serves the National Interest,’ Yet It Threatens Indian Rights and the Drinking Water of 18 Million People”

Here.

Alaska Civil Diversion Agreement with Anvik Tribe in Alaska

The agreement allows for law enforcement officers in Alaska to refer certain misdemeanor crimes and offenses to participating tribal courts for restorative justice sentencing. It’s the first of its kind agreement in Alaska and the Anvik tribe located in Anvik, AK became the first tribe to enter into this agreement with the State. Please let me know if you would like additional information. Thanks!

The following link is to an article in the local Fairbanks, AK newspaper regarding the Civil Diversion Agreement.

http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/anvik-tribal-government-able-to-rule-on-low-level-village/article_072cdd02-dafc-11e6-820d-035b3c84695c.html

The following link is to the Civil Diversion Agreement itself on the State of Alaska’s website.

http://law.alaska.gov/pdf/press/170110-CivilDiversionAgreement.pdf

The Atlantic on the Presidential Memorandum on DAPL and KXL

Here.

“It’s the flip-side of the question everyone was asking last year, ‘Why doesn’t Obama just put the kibosh on Dakota Access?’” said Sarah Krakoff, a professor of tribal and resources law at the University of Colorado Boulder. “Well, it’s not really his role. It’s the Army Corps’s role, and that’s still true today.”

“Trump can’t, with the stroke of a pen, just make the Dakota Access pipeline happen. He just can’t. He doesn’t have that authority. It’s his agency’s authority, and he can’t revoke the laws that the agency just found that it has to comply with,” she added.

She added too that the executive orders seemed to be written in a typical way. Instead of commanding agencies to ignore congressionally passed law, the orders request that they expedite or reconsider previous judgments. “Executive orders are legal orders—they’re law—but they can’t contravene legislative enactments. So an executive order can’t say, ‘Ignore the [National Environmental Policy Act] and give me a pipeline,’” she told me.

“If the federal law gives decision-making authority to a particular official, that official has to make the decision,” said John Leshy, a professor of real property law and a former general counsel to the U.S. Department of the Interior. “But there’s some murkiness about what the president can do. The decision maker can say no, and then the president can fire them and replace them with someone who would. But that takes time.”

Krakoff added that it would attract judicial suspicion if the Army Corps of Engineers suddenly decided that it didn’t have to make an environmental-impact statement for the Dakota Access pipeline after saying that it did just weeks ago.

“It would be hard for them to turn around on a dime and say, ‘We got this piece of paper from the president and now we don’t think that’s necessary,’” she said. “If the agency were to take a different route, legally, now, I would strongly suspect that that would be subject to litigation.”

More on the Revival of Keystone and DAPL

From The Hill:

Trump takes action to move forward with Keystone, Dakota Access pipelines