Bay Mills Indian Community Brings Contested Case against Line 5 Tunnel Proposal

Here.

Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Colville Tribal Citizen Treaty Rights

Here is the opinion in R. v. Desautel:

Opinion

Prior post.

Washington COA Orders Additional Proceedings in Shopbell Criminal Case

Here are the materials in State of Washington v. Shopbell (Wash. Ct. App. — Div. 1):

Unpublished Opinion

Appellant Brief

Respondent Brief

Reply

Prior post here.

Wisconsin Federal Court Holds Tax Immunities Do Not Apply to Reacquired Reservation Land

Here are the relevant materials in Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Evers (W.D. Wis.):

153 State Motion for Summary J

171 Towns and Assessors Motion for Summary J

172 Tribe Motion for Summary J

213 Tribe Response to 171

215 Tribe Response to 153

223 State Reply in Support of 153

228 Towns and Assessors Reply in Support of 171

232 Tribe Reply in Support of 172

245 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Cert Petition in Seneca Nation Citizen’s Treaty-Based Tax Immunity Claim

Here is the petition in Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue:

Perkins v. Commissioner Cert Petition

Question presented:

This Court is presented with a question of first impression, as to the taxability of income derived from the sale of sand and gravel, mined from treatyprotected land by an enrolled member of the Seneca Nation of Indians (“Seneca Nation”). Upon the granting of certiorari, the Court will examine the language in two federal treaties, promising not to disturb the “free use and enjoyment” of lands by the Seneca Nation and “their Indian friends residing thereon and united with them,” and protecting these lands “from all taxes” for any purpose. Treaty with the Six Nations (“Canandaigua Treaty”), art. III, Nov. 11, 1794, 7 Stat. 45; Treaty with the Senecas (“1842 Treaty”), art. 9th, May 20, 1842, 7 Stat. 590. Congress has explicitly stated the Internal Revenue Code “shall be applied to any taxpayer with due regard to any treaty obligation of the United States which applies to such taxpayer.” 26 U.S.C.A. § 894 (a)(1)(West).

The question presented is whether the United States Court of Appeals and the United States Tax Court have given “due regards” to the treaty obligations of the United States by finding these treaties had no textual support for an exemption from federal income tax applicable to an enrolled Seneca member whose income is derived from the
lands of the Seneca Nation. Perkins v. Comm’r, 970 F.3d 148, 162-67 (2d. Cir. 2020).

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE (5/1/21):

Starna Amicus Brief

Commissioner BIO

Reply

Federal Court Dismisses Sault Tribe Member’s Claim to Tax Immunities

Here are the materials in Hall v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich.):

1 Pro Se Complaint

13 Tribe Motion to Dismiss

15 Response

19 Reply

20 State Motion for Summary Judgment

23 Response

24 Reply

27 Magistrate Report re 13

28 Magistrate Report re 20

28 Magistrate Report

32 DCT Order

33 Amended DCT Order

Circle of Blue: “Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History”

Here.

Interesting New Scholarship on Cultural Linguistics and Treaty Language

Sammy Matsaw, Dylan Nicely-Hedden, and Barbara A. Cosens have posted “Cultural Linguistics and Treaty Language: A Modernized Approach to Interpreting Treaty Language to Capture the Tribe’s Understanding“, forthcoming in Environmental Law, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Language is a reflection of a thought world. A worldview that has been shaped by place to describe one’s identity in space and time does not equate to species relatedness as a default to know one another. In the legal system of the United States, there is acknowledgement of treaties in colonized lands that there are rights granted from the tribes and not to them, and those rights are landbased. Yet, the Indigenous voice is dead before arrival, before it enters the room of science, justice, academe, or otherwise. The exclusion of Indigenous peoples at the table of knowledge and from the power to make decisions within their homelands has proven a detriment to the land, waterways, flora and fauna, and human beings. Nowhere would tribal peoples have agreed to our own destruction, it is and has been a forced hand. This Article explores the changing interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court canon to construe treaties with Native American tribes as the tribe would have understood them, and why mere translation of Native language to English fails to capture a Native understanding. Through the juxtaposition of western legal analysis and the powerful voice of a Native scientist, this Article illustrates how difficult and yet how necessary it will be to bridge that divide if this powerful western nation is to fulfill its sacred promises to Native people. As a contribution to the Issue on the fiftieth anniversary of United States v. Oregon, this Article looks to the future of federal jurisprudence on the interpretation of treaties with American Indians and envisions one in which reconciliation through an understanding of different worldviews is possible.

Kialegee Tribal Town Sues Interior (again)

Here is the complaint, currently captioned Kialegee Tribal Town v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

Prior case, dismissed for lack of ripeness, here.

NYTs: “Wisconsin Hunters Kill Over 200 Wolves in Less Than 3 Days”

Here.

A shocking excerpt:

The state had set a quota of 200 wolves, with 119 for hunters who applied for permits with the department and 81 set aside to the Ojibwe Tribes under their treaty rights.

“The notion that there was this wide divergence between the outcome of the hunt and the number of the wolves that could be hunted simply doesn’t bear up to analysis,” Mr. Esenberg said.

But the tribes consider wolves to be sacred and made a deliberate decision not to hunt them, said Dylan Jennings, a spokesman for the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, which represents the tribes.