Here are the materials in Jones v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Prior posts here.
Here are the materials in Jones v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Prior posts here.
Here is the unpublished opinion in State v. Northrup:
Here are the cert stage materials in McGirt v. Oklahoma:
oklahoma-brief-in-opposition.pdf
Friday’s order list here.
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
Here is the petition:
Here are the briefs:
Here are the materials in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe (CA9):
Quileute & Quinault Opening Brief
State of Washington and Klallam Tribes Brief
Lower court materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.) (subproceeding 09-01):
442 Quileute Motion for Reconsideration
447 State Motion — Scrivener’s Error
456 State Response to Motions for Reconsideration
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.
By Rory Taylor, here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.