State of Washington’s Opening Brief in Ninth Circuit Appeal of Culverts Decision

Here:

State’s Opening Brief

Update: Oregon Amicus

Lower court materials are here.

New Scholarship on the Jay Treaty Right to Free Access for Indians

Greg Boos and Greg McLawsen have posted “American Indians Born in Canada and the Right of Free Access to the United States” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Certain American Indians born in Canada enjoy access to the United States unrestricted by the Immigration and Nationality Act, a right stemming from the Jay Treaty of 1794. An examination of this right, reflected by codification as § 289 of the INA, reveals qualifying ABCs are entitled to privileges unparalleled by all but United States citizens to enter and remain in the U.S. “for the purpose of employment, study, retirement, investing, and/or immigration” or any other reason.

Federal Court Dismisses Treaty Rights Effort to Invalidate Repossession of Vehicle

Here are the materials in Trazell v. Wilmers (D. D.C.):

1 Complaint

14 Motion to Dismiss

17 Trazell Motion for Summary J

25 DCT Order

Federal Court Allows KBIC Member’s Treaty Rights Case re: Pig Farming to Proceed

Here is the order denying Michigan’s motion to dismiss in Turunen v. Creagh (W.D. Mich.):

DCT Order

Briefs here.

Prior posts here and here.

Colette Routel on Bounties on Dakota Men During the US-Dakota War

Highly recommended paper.

Colette Routel has posted “Minnesota Bounties on Dakota Men During the US-Dakota War” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The U.S.-Dakota War was one of the formative events in Minnesota history, and despite the passage of time, it still stirs up powerful emotions among descendants of the Dakota and white settlers who experienced this tragedy. Hundreds of people lost their lives in just over a month of fighting in 1862. By the time the year was over, thirty-eight Dakota men had been hanged in the largest mass execution in United States history. Not long afterwards, the United States abrogated its treaties with the Dakota, confiscated their reservations along the Minnesota River, and forced most of the Dakota to remove westward.

While dozens of books and articles have been written about these events, scholars have largely ignored an important legal development that occurred in Minnesota during the following summer. The Minnesota Adjutant General, at the direction of Minnesota Governors Alexander Ramsey and Henry Swift, issued a series of orders offering rewards for the killing of Dakota men found within the State. The first order authorized the creation of a corps of volunteer scouts that would scour the “Big Woods” in search of Dakota men. They were to be paid not only a daily wage, but an additional $25 for each scalp they were able to provide the Adjutant General’s Office. Subsequent orders permitted individual citizens who were not part of the volunteer corps to claim up to $200 for proof that they had killed a Dakota. These bounty orders remained in effect until at least 1868, when their constitutionality was finally questioned by the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Gut.

Minnesota was not the only state that placed a bounty on their Indian inhabitants. Around the same time, a bounty system was enacted by the Territory of Arizona, and one was also implemented by private citizens and local governments within the State of California. Like the bounty system in Minnesota, these programs were creatures of state and territorial law, but they were implicitly and explicitly approved by the federal government. In fact, they could be viewed as part of a much broader extermination program that was at the heart of federal Indian policy during this time period.

This article uses primary historical sources to describe the events leading up to the enactment of a bounty system in Minnesota, its creation, and subsequent on-the-ground implementation. In an attempt to avoid the pitfalls of “presentism,” the legality of this bounty system is analyzed according to the laws in effect in 1863, when it was created. This article concludes that the Minnesota bounty system was illegal from its inception, as it was contrary not only the international law of war, but also the Lieber Code, which was issued by the U.S. Secretary of War in April 1863, and used to govern the conduct of Union soldiers during the ongoing Civil War.

Swinomish Prevails in Washington COA Challenge to State Dept. of Ecology in Matter Affecting Treaty Rights

Here is the opinion in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Washington Dept. of Ecology (PDF).

An excerpt:

This case involves the validity of an amended rule from the Department of Ecology (Ecology) that reserves water from the Skagit River system for future year-round out-of-stream uses, despite the fact that in times of low stream flows these uses will impair established minimum instream flows necessary for fish, wildlife, recreation, navigation, scenic and aesthetic values. Ecology relies on RCW 90.54.020(3)(a) for authority to make the reservations of water despite the existing minimum flows. This statutory provision allows impairment of stream base flows when overriding considerations of public interest are served. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (Tribe) petitioned for review in superior court, challenging the validity of Ecology’s amended rule reserving the water.

Available briefs here:

NYTs Coverage of Nez Perce Fight against MegaLoads and Climate Change

Here.

20130926-083837.jpg

New State Motion in Penobscot Tribe & United States v. Mills (Maine)

Here:

2013-08-26 Defendant State_s Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaim (3)

Affirmation in Support of State Defendant_s Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaim (2)

Exhibit A – Amended Answer and Counterclaim (3)

Exhibit B – letters from Banks (3)

Exhibit C – 2012-05-24 Statement by Counsel (3)

Exhibit D 2013-07-11 Chief_s Correspondence to FERC (2)

US intervention materials here. Prior post here.

Judge Hogan Sets Cherokee Freedmen Oral Argument for April 29, 2014

Here:

2013-09-17 Order Granting Joint Motion for Order Setting Briefing Schedule for Summary Judgment on Core Issue

 

Briefing Schedule in Cherokee Freedmen Case (Now in D.C. Federal District Court)

Here:

2013-09-13 Joint Motion for Order Setting Briefing Schedule for Summary Judgment on Core Issue and Staying Case on All Other Matters