SCOTUSblog preview here.

Merits stage briefs:

Federal Brief

Colorado Brief

Arizona Brief

Navajo Nation Brief

Arizona Reply

Colorado Reply

Federal Reply

Joint Appendix

Merits Stage Amicus Briefs (supporting Petitioners; there’s a second one but I refuse to give space on my blog to those rancid bigots):

Western Water Users Amicus

Merits Stage Amicus Briefs (supporting Respondents):

Coalition of Large Tribes Amicus Brief

DigDeep Right to Water Project Amicus Brief

Diné Hataalii Association Amicus Brief

Historians Amicus Brief

McCool Rosser Wilkins Amicus Brief

Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Amicus Brief

Tribal Nations and Indian Organizations Amicus Brief

Ute Indian Tribe Amicus Brief

Water Scholars Brief

Cert Stage Briefs:

Arizona Petition 21-1484

Navajo Opposition 21-1484

Federal Response in 21-1484

Arizona Reply 21-1484

Federal Petition 22-51

Navajo Opposition 22-51

States Reponse 22-51

Federal Reply 22-51

Ninth Circuit En Banc Materials

Amended Order + Denial of En Banc Petition

US En Banc Petition

Water District En Banc Petition

Navajo Response

Ninth Circuit Panel Materials:

Opinion

District Court Materials:

Third Amended Complaint materials

339 US Response

340 Utility and State Response

346 Navajo Reply

360-1 Navajo Renewed Motion

369 Utility and State Response

370 US Response

375 Navajo Reply

385 DCT Order

The ABA Section of Environment Energy & Resources Native American Resources Committee is hosting a free Upcoming Community Conversation: “Utility or Futility? REDD+, Carbon Credits, and Indigenous-led Forest Protection” on Apr 25, 2023 12:00 PM CT. 

Register: https://americanbar.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJUpduuuqzspEtYhXEbSfKtwqi-zEzpt6BqP

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) and other programs aim to protect forest areas and prevent deforestation while benefitting Indigenous and local communities. But just how effective are these programs, particularly when it comes to respecting the principles of Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)? Join this roundtable discussion to pinpoint the policy aspirations surrounding the protection of forest areas and to ascertain from multiple points of view whether these “carbon credit” programs are effective, particularly for Indigenous communities whose traditional lands overlap the areas targeted for projects. The discussion aims to result in a Report and Recommendation in support of an ABA Resolution to be submitted for approval by the ABA’s House of Delegates at the ABA’s annual or mid-year meeting. 

Relevant questions for debate and discussion will include: Are these programs effective in the first place? Do they achieve what they intend to do, including benefitting Indigenous and local communities? Are they consistent with the goals outlined in COP meetings? Do they engage all relevant Indigenous governments and stakeholders? 

This first Roundtable will be moderated by Tom O’Keefe, Co-Chair of the ABA International Law Section’s International Energy & Environmental Law Committee, and facilitated by Altamush Saeed and Bryan Van Stippen. 

The following short news articles will be the basis for the discussion but the facilitators welcome any and all knowledge holders from any perspective on the subject. Article 1: [https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/] Article 2: [https://news.mongabay.com/2021/09/forest-finance-expected-to-advance-under-new-trees-standard-and-leaf-coalition/]

The Tribal Law Journal at the University of New Mexico School of Law is currently accepting abstracts addressing the impacts of Johnson v. M’Intosh on Native communities and tribal governments. The deadline is March 15, 2023. See below for more information.