Research – Page 4 – Turtle Talk

Data Centers in Indian Country

August 20, 2026August 20, 2026Wenona Singel

As some Tribes reject hyperscale data centers in Indian Country, others are embracing data center development. Others are imposing moratoria on data centers to allow for further studies and policy development. Below is a snapshot of what Tribes are doing. It illustrates the diversity of Tribes in the US, and it shows Tribes acting as governments, regulators, landowners, utility operators, infrastructure owners, investors, economic development actors, and political communities as they decide what tech development should look like on their lands.

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma: Released a Data Center Task Force report on August 5, 2026 and is now banning hyperscale data centers on tribally owned and trust lands.

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma: On March 7, 2026, the Tribal Council unanimously voted for a moratorium on generative-AI and hyperscale data center development within its jurisdiction. The resolution also bars “any inquiries, discussions and/or developments concerning any entity seeking to develop a data center of any size within the Seminole Nation during the moratorium period.”

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians: Supports a moratorium. The Tribe adopted a resolution on May 19, 2026 supporting the state of Michigan establishing a temporary moratorium on large-scale data centers and cryptocurrency mining until a Tribal consultation process is established, including comprehensive environmental and cultural impact assessments on any legislation involving large-scale data centers and cryptocurrency mining.

Muscogee (Creek) Nation: Rejected. In November 2025, the National Council rejected a measure that would have developed a data center at Looped Square Ranch, where land is being used for Tribal food sovereignty.

Hoopa Valley Tribe: Supports, under Tribal ownership. Hoopa opened a new data center on July 17, 2026, but it’s not a hyperscale data center. It’s a tribally-owned facility serving as the operational hub of Hoopa’s fiber-to-home broadband network and Acorn Connected, its Tribal internet service provider.

Forest County Potawatomi Community: Yes, and has been doing it for years. Its enterprise Data Holdings operates a commercial data center in Milwaukee on trust land and is 100% Tribally owned. It opened in 2013 as a $33 million wholesale data center and now provides colocation/private cloud services and hosts the Milwaukee Internet Exchange.

Navajo Nation: Yes. Navajo Tribal Utility Authority operates a data center in Shiprock on the Navajo Nation offering colocation, virtualization and high-speed optical backhaul to off-reservation points-of-presence in Albuquerque and Phoenix. NTUA is a Navajo Nation enterprise, and the facility serves both Navajo and outside government and business customers.

Colusa Indian Community: Actively pursuing AI infrastructure. The Community’s Colusa Indian Energy announced a partnership in March 2026 with Strata Expanse to develop an AI and energy infrastructure campus on the land of the Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community in Northern California. Plans include expanding on-site energy generation capacity to more than 100 MW over the next 18 months.

Osage Nation: Debating a data center approved in February 2026 by the City of Sand Springs on the Osage reservation. The proposed data center would be operated by Google, and construction is planned to begin in 2027. The developers are seeking support from the Osage Minerals Council, which controls the nation’s 1.47 million acre oil and gas subsurface.

Additional Resources

Tribal Nations and Data Centers: Emerging Issues and Resources, USET

AI Data Centers and Tribes: Emerging Federal and Policy State Trends and Tribal Governance Options, Tana Fitzpatrick, Director, Native Nations Center for Tribal Policy Research

Honor the Earth Data Center Tracker (interactive crowd-sourced map)

Indigenous Peoples Push Back as Data Centers Expand Across North America, John Ahni Schertow in Intercontinental Cry Magazine

The Cloud is Drying our Rivers: Water Usage of AI Data Centers, Charlotte Jennings, EthicalGeo

Honor the Earth DataCenterTracker; Earthstar Geographics; U.S. Census Bureau

D.C. Federal Court Order Denying Injunction to Stop Border Wall Construction

August 18, 2026Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Tohono O’Odham Nation v. Mullin (D.D.C.):

DCT Order.pdf Download

Prior post here.

Alaska SCT Decides “Race to the Courthouse” in Favor of First-Filed Tribal Court Matter

August 10, 2026Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Mallette v. Adams:

Opinion.pdf Download

Katherine Florey on Indian Law Countercanons

August 10, 2026Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Katherine Florey has posted “Indian Law Countercanons,” forthcoming in the Michigan Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

On the second or third day of class, Federal Indian Law students learn that courts apply field-specific canons, originally derived from Chief Justice Marshall’s 1832 opinion in Worcester v. Georgia, to determine the degree to which tribal nations retain sovereign powers and treaty-protected rights in the face of arguably conflicting law. Although the canons are formulated in different ways, they are animated by the shared goal of establishing structural recognition and protections for tribes. Nonetheless, scholars and tribal advocates have lamented that, even as courts continue to apply the canons, in recent years they have failed to do so consistently.

This Article posits, however, that the issue goes deeper. The Supreme Court, especially in recent decades, has done more than simply ignore the canons when it chooses to. Rather, in keeping with Karl N. Llewellyn’s famous observation that, where statutory interpretation in general is concerned, “there are two opposing canons on almost every point,” the Court has developed a series of what might be called the Indian law countercanons. Although not precisely opposite to the traditional Indian law canons in all respects, the countercanons reflect a set of values wholly inconsistent with the protections for tribal sovereignty that the traditional canons embody, instead evincing an overwhelming preoccupation with safeguarding the non-Native status quo.

The countercanons have strongly influenced outcomes in a variety of cases over the past few decades. Yet the Court has not identified them as canons, nor has it explained their source, role, or scope of application. To fill this gap, this Article attempts to map the evolution of the countercanons and to explore the significant role they have played in a variety of situations. The Article also adds a new element to the abundant critiques of the Court’s recent federal Indian law jurisprudence by analyzing the countercanons specifically as canons – that is, by connecting them to the larger literature on the role of canons in legal interpretation more generally. Reviewing two areas of canon scholarship – standards for assessing canons’ validity and considerations of when it is appropriate for canons to change – the Article concludes that, in contrast to the traditional canons, the countercanons lack legitimacy. On this basis, the Article critiques both the countercanons themselves and the process by which they have come to partially supplant the traditional canons.