Here:
Thurtson County Response to Motion for Judicial Notice
The motion is here.
Here is the motion in Confederated Chehalis Tribes v. Thurston County Board of Equalization:
Chehalis Motion to Take Judicial Notice
The federal regs are here. 25 CFR 162.017 reads:
Subject only to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on the leased land, without regard to ownership of those improvements, are not subject to any fee, tax, assessment, levy or other charge imposed by any State or political subdivision of a State. Improvements may be subject to taxation by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction.
Here. The full policy is here.
From the press release:
The policy provides that, consistent with the Department of Justice’s traditional exercise of its discretion, a member of a federally recognized tribe engaged only in the following types of conduct will not be subject to prosecution:
· Possessing, using, wearing or carrying federally protected birds, bird feathers or other bird parts (federally protected bird parts);
· Traveling domestically with federally protected bird parts or, if tribal members obtain and comply with necessary permits, traveling internationally with such items;
· Picking up naturally molted or fallen feathers found in the wild, without molesting or disturbing federally protected birds or their nests;
· Giving or loaning federally protected bird parts to other members of federally recognized tribes, without compensation of any kind;
· Exchanging federally protected bird parts for federally protected bird parts with other members of federally recognized tribes, without compensation of any kind;
· Providing the feathers or other parts of federally protected birds to craftspersons who are members of federally recognized tribes to be fashioned into objects for eventual use in tribal religious or cultural activities.
Here are the materials in Absentee Shawnee Housing Authority v. HUD (W.D. Okla.):
Here.
An excerpt from the website:
A new legal analysis by the National Wildlife Federation finds that laws in Michigan and Ohio need to be improved to protect the region’s streams, rivers, lakes, and wildlife from the risks of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” Energy companies use this controversial technique to extract natural gas from fine-grained shale, injecting a mix of water, chemicals, and sand into a well at high pressures to crack open the rock. The natural gas then flows out into the well and is captured aboveground.
Fracking has raised significant environmental concerns, including the potential for impacts on water quality and water-dependent natural resources.
“Our analysis shows that Michigan and Ohio are doing some things right, but the states remain vulnerable to risks associated with fracking,” said Sara Gosman, water resources attorney for the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes office and lecturer at the University of Michigan Law School. “We urge Michigan and Ohio to strengthen their laws to protect public health, wildlife and water resources now and for generations to come.”
Download the full report: Hydraulic Fracturing in the Great Lakes Basin: The State of Play in Michigan and Ohio
Here is today’s opinion in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA:
In 2003, the OIG issued a report evaluating the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ process for approving tribal revenue allocation ordinances. A few days ago, the OIG issued a quick follow up to that report, determining whether and how the BIA responded to the OIG’s three recommendations. Here is that follow-up:
An excerpt:
Based on our review, we agree that BIA’s Office oflndian Gaming attempted to implement the first two recommendations but did not succeed due to resistance from tribal authorities and lack of enforcement capability. BIA concluded that it did not have the authority to force tribes to submit the additional financial information that would have been required to implement OIG’s first two recommendations. OIG agrees that there is no express authority in either applicable regulation or statute to require submittal of financial information from tribes to obtain approval for gaming Revenue Allocation Plans (RAPs). DOl and BIA could have, however, used their authority to deny RAPs to effectively compel requested financial information from tribes.
Here is today’s opinion in State of New York v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and selected briefs:
Prairie Island and NY VT CT NJ Brief
NY VT CT NJ & Prairie Island Reply Brief
Here is the complaint in Confederated Colville Tribes v. Sebelius (D. Or.):
You must be logged in to post a comment.