Federal Court Enjoins Lummi Tribe’s Proposed Winter Crab Fishing

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding no. 19-01:

1-motion-for-leave-to-file.pdf

3-request-for-determination.pdf

8-swinomish-motion-for-tro.pdf

13-upper-skagit-motion-for-tro.pdf

16-tulalip-motion-for-tro.pdf

26-sklallam-tribes-response.pdf

29-lummi-response.pdf

37-dct-order.pdf

Ninth Circuit Affirms U&A Boundaries in U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 09-01 [Makah versus Quinault & Quileute]

Here are the materials in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe (CA9):

Unpublished Memorandum

Quileute & Quinault Opening Brief

Makah Answer Brief

Quileute & Quinault Reply

Suquamish Brief

State of Washington and Klallam Tribes Brief

Hoh Brief

Lower court materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.) (subproceeding 09-01):

439 DCT Order re Boundaries

442 Quileute Motion for Reconsideration

444 Hoh Motion

445 Quinault Motion

447 State Motion — Scrivener’s Error

448 Suquamish Motion

449 DCT Amended Order

453 Makah Response

456 State Response to Motions for Reconsideration

459 DCT Order Denying Motions for Reconsideration

Prior posts here and here.

Danielle Delaney on Environmental Law, Indigenous Identity, and #NoDAPL

Danielle Delaney has published “Under Coyote’s Mask: Environmental Law, Indigenous Identity, and #NoDAPL” in the Michigan Journal of Race & Law.

The abstract:

This Article studies the relationship between the three main lawsuits filed by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Yankton Sioux Tribe against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DaPL) and the mass protests launched from the Sacred Stone and Oceti Sakowin protest camps. The use of environmental law as the primary legal mechanism to challenge the construction of the pipeline distorted the indigenous demand for justice as U.S. federal law is incapable of seeing the full depth of the indigenous worldview supporting their challenge. Indigenous activists constantly re-centered the direct actions and protests within indigenous culture to remind non-indigenous activists and the wider media audience that the protests were an indigenous protest, rather than a purely environmental protest, a distinction that was obscured as the litigation progressed. The NoDAPL protests, the litigation to prevent the completion and later operation of the pipeline, and the social movement that the protests engendered, were an explosive expression of indigenous resistance—resistance to systems that silence and ignore indigenous voices while attempting to extract resources from their lands and communities. As a case study, the protests demonstrate how the use of litigation, while often critical to achieving the goals of political protest, distorts the expression of politics not already recognized within the legal discourse.

Briefs in Rosebud Sioux Tribe and Fort Belknap Indian Community v. Trump (Keystone XL)

Here are the briefs on the United States’ and TransCanada’s Motions to Dismiss Rosebud and Fort Belknap’s treaty and jurisdiction claims regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline.

News coverage here, and more information here.  Previous posts on this case are here.

Federal Court Affirms Yakama Reservation Boundaries

Here are the materials in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Klickitat County (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

16 Motion to Dismiss

23 Response

24 Reply

25 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

36 Tribe Motion for PI

43 County Response

51 Reply

58 DCT Order Denying Motion for PI

76 US Amicus Brief

77 County Trial Brief

78 Yakama Trial Brief

86-1 Corrected US Amicus Brief

100 Washington Amicus Brief

112 DCT Order

Yakama PR