treaty rights

U.S. brief in opposition to cert. in Culverts case

Ann Tweedy

Here.

Cert Stage Briefs in Herrera v. Wyoming

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

2017-10-05 Herrera Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether Wyoming’s admission to the Union or the establishment of the Bighorn National Forest abrogated the Crow Tribe of Indians’ 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States,” thereby permitting the present-day criminal conviction of a Crow member who engaged in subsistence hunting for his family.

Additional briefs:

17-532 Amici Brief Indian Law Professors

Crow Tribe Brief

Scholars Brief

Wyoming opposition to Herrera petition

Cert Stage Reply

 

Yukon First Nations’ Suit over Peel Watershed Reaches Canada Supreme Court

Ann Tweedy

Here. Previous coverage is here.

Makah & State request rehearing & rehearing en banc in dispute regarding Quileute’s and Quinault’s ocean U&A

Ann Tweedy1 Comment

Makah’s petition is here, and the state’s is here. Among the issues at stake in the case are whether the Stevens treaties must be interpreted monolithically and whether the evidence of whaling and sealing is sufficient to establish fishing usual & accustomed areas.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Nisqually Indian Tribe v. Squaxin Island Indian Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here (aka United States v. Washington subproceeding 14-2):

Nisqually Opening Brief

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Remands Makah v. Quileute/Quinault Ocean U&A Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe.

 Briefs are here.

Article About the Little Traverse Reservation Boundary Case

Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Links: Detroit Business article by Tom Beaman, previous posts

Herrera v. Wyoming Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

2017-10-05 Herrera Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether Wyoming’s admission to the Union or the establishment of the Bighorn National Forest abrogated the Crow Tribe of Indians’ 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States,” thereby permitting the present-day criminal conviction of a Crow member who engaged in subsistence hunting for his family.

 

Standing Rock/NoDAPL Motion to File Amicus in Support of Dakota Access and ACOE Brief Regarding Remedy

Sarah M Donnelly

Here are the briefs(PDF) in the matter of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe et al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al, (D.D.C. 16-cv-01534):

Link: Previously filed documents

Upper Skagit Prevails over Suquamish in Ninth Circuit U&A Fishing Territory Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Suquamish Indian Tribe.

An excerpt:

In this treaty fishing rights case, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (“the Upper Skagit”) filed a Request for Determination as to the geographic scope of the Suquamish Indian Tribe’s (“the Suquamish”) usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations (“U&A”) as determined by Judge Boldt in 1975. Specifically, the Upper Skagit sought a determination that the Suquamish’s U&A determinations do not include Chuckanut Bay, Samish Bay, and a portion of Padilla Bay where the Upper Skagit has its own court-approved U&A determinations (“the Contested Waters”). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Judge Boldt did not intend to include the Contested Waters in the Suquamish’s U&A determinations and, accordingly, granted summary judgment to the Upper Skagit. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, we affirm.

Briefs here.