Court docs here.
treaty rights
NYTs Op-Ed: David Archambault on Dakota Access Opposition
Here is “Taking a Stand at Standing Rock.”
NYTs: “Occupying the Prairie: Tensions Rise as Tribes Move to Block a Pipeline”
Historic Water Agreement Between Oklahoma and Tribes
Federal Court Grants TRO against Standing Rock Members in SLAPP Suit related to Dakota Access Pipeline
Here are the materials in Dakota Access LLC v. Archambault (D.N.D.):
Related suit here.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in U.S. v. Washington Ocean Fishing Appeal
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (subproceeding 09-01):
Washington has Petitioned for Rehearing/Rehearing En Banc in the Culverts Case
Here.
Previous coverage of the 9th Circuit panel decision is here.
UPDATE (8/23/16):
122-1-Amici motion from Klamath basin
122-2-Klamath basin amici brief
UPDATE (5/19/17):
Catherine O’Neill on Washington Dept. of Ecology’s Draft Water Quality Standards and the District Court’s Order Enjoining EPA to Act
Here. Professor O’Neill provides a detailed and understandable summary of the many problems with Ecology’s draft standards and also explains EPA’s role and the District Court for the Western District of Washington’s recent decision.
The District Court’s decision in Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. EPA is here: Puget Soundkeeper v EPA Order on Summary Judgment 8-3-16.
Standing Rock Sioux Sues Army Corps over Dakota Access Pipeline
Here are the materials so far in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):
Proposed order preliminary injunction
Proposed order expedited hearing
UPDATE (8/24/16):
Cert Petition Arising from Police Killing of Ute Tribal Member
Here is the petition in Jones v. Norton:
Questions presented:
- Where it is undisputed that Plaintiffs/Petitioners Debra Jones and Arden Jones, and their deceased son Todd R. Murray, all had individual rights under the 1868 Ute Tribe treaty with the United States, and where, under the procedural posture of this case, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs’ and their Decedent son’s individual rights under the Treaty were violated, did Plaintiffs state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the violation of their treaty rights?
- 2.Where State police officers have pursued an Indian within Indian country without either probable cause or jurisdictional authority can they be relieved of the common law duty to preserve evidence simply because the officers’ tortious conduct giving rise to the claims against them arose within Indian country?
- 3.Where there are disputed material facts, can a district court grant summary judgment based upon the court’s opinion that a reasonable jury would decide the case in favor of the summary judgment movant?
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.