Final En Banc Opinion in Samish Effort to Reopen U.S. v. Washington

Here.

Kennecott Mine Permits Okayed

From Michigan Messenger (h/t to A.K.) [DEQ press release here]:

Two days before the DEQceases to exist and a week after its director stepped down, DEQ moved to wrap up a long standing fight over permits for a planned nickel sulfide mine by concluding that only buildings may be considered “places of worship.”

A rock that is sacred toAnishnabe people need not be considered when issuing a mining permit because state law only recognizes buildings as places of worship, the Department of Environmental Quality announced Thursday.

This decision cleared the way for DEQ to finalize permits for a mine planned for public land on the Yellow Dog Plain northwest of Marquette.

The resolution comes at a time of great tumult for the department. Director Steven Chester resigned last week, and the department is slated to come under the leadership of DNR director Rebecca Humphries when it is rolled into the new Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment on Jan. 17.

For seven years the Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company, a subsidiary of London-based Rio Tinto, has been trying to develop the mine project. The company promised hundreds of construction and mining jobs but has faced opposition from groups that are concerned that acid drainage from the mine will damage the nearby Salmon Trout River and Lake Superior.

The National Wildlife FederationKeweenaw Bay Indian CommunityYellow Dog Watershed Preserve, and the Huron Mountain Club together filed an administrative appeal of DEQ’s 2007 approval of mining and groundwater discharge permits for the mine. Continue reading

Additional News Coverage of Asian Carp Debacle

From How Appealing:

“Asian carp DNA found in Lake Michigan; High Court inaction angers Mich. leaders”:The Detroit News has an update that begins, “On the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would not take immediate action to prevent Asian carp from reaching Lake Michigan, DNA samples indicate the fish may already be there.”

The Detroit Free Press has a news update headlined “Granholm: White House summit about carp needed.”

The Chicago Tribune has a news update headlined “Army Corps: Asian carp DNA found in Lake Michigan.”

And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Michigan request denied in Great Lakes carp case; High court won’t order closing of two Chicago-area locks; Federal government said Michigan was unlikely to prevail; Closing locks would hurt shippers.”

Natural Resources Journal (UNM) Symposium on New Mexico Land Grants

Here:

Symposium on
Land Grants and the Law:
The Disputed Legal Histories
of New Mexico’s Land Grants

Introduction ix
Kristina G. Fisher

Essay
Persistence and Disintegration: New Mexico’s Community Land Grants in Historical Perspective 847
Manuel García y Griego

Articles
Righting the Record: A Response to the GAO’s 2004 Report “Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Findings and Possible Options Regarding Longstanding Community Land Grant Claims in New Mexico” 857
David Benavides & Ryan Golten

Appendix to Righting the Record: Land Grant Speculation in New Mexico During the Territorial Period 927
David Correia

Continue reading

News Coverage of Asian Carp Case

From SCOTUSblog:

Following an editorial yesterday decrying the recent suit filed against the State of Illinois by the State of Michigan, the Chicago Tribune has a news story on recent fillings questioning the science behind Michigan’s claim that carp emerging through locks from Illinois waters could endanger the local fish.  The filings, in defense of Illinois, come from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  UPI reports that the Obama Administration has come out in favor of Illinois as well, while the Christian Science Monitor has Michigan’s side of the story.

Paul Spruhan on the Canadian Indian Free Passage Right

Paul Spruhan (Navajo Nation AG’s Office) has published, “The Canadian Indian Free Passage Right: The Last Stronghold of Explicit Race Restriction in United States Immigration Law” in the North Dakota Law Review. Paul continues his long string of outstanding articles in legal history and Indian law. This one should be of special interest to immigration specialists as well.

Here is an excerpt:

[T]his article reviews the tangled legal history of the Canadian Indian free passage right to answer the question why such a racial restriction continues to exist today. Part II-A discusses the origins of Indians’ free passage right in treaties between the United States and Great Britain, and a congressional statute passed in 1928. Part II-B, through an analysis of cases and administrative policies, shows how officials struggled to define “Canadian Indian” under the 1928 act, conceptualizing Indian status at first as a “political” status defined by Canadian law and then as a “racial” status defined by American law. Part II-C then discusses the adoption of the blood quantum restriction as part of a comprehensive overhaul of American immigration law in 1952, and the apparent reasons for why Congress adopted a half-blood rule.
In section III, the article discusses problems arising after 1952 for Canadian Indians, like Peter Roberts, who must prove their amount of Indian blood to invoke their passage right. Section IV discusses the implications of the explicit racial restriction for federal Indian law and immigration law. It notes that both are premised on congressional “plenary power,” historically outside constitutional review by the United States Supreme Court. It discusses how the Supreme Court, since the 1970s, has reviewed the constitutionality of Indian legislation under equal protection principles, but has not done so for immigration legislation premised on race. Contrasting the current state of racial legislation under Congress’s powers to legislate in Indian affairs with its power to legislate concerning immigration, the article suggests that the blood quantum restriction for Canadian Indian free passage may present an opportunity to distinguish definitions in federal Indian law that use blood quantum and to challenge prior precedent exempting immigration legislation from judicial scrutiny.

Ninth Circuit Panel Issues New Opinion in Upper Skagit v. Washington

Here is the new opinion, granting rehearing and denying the en  banc motion as moot.

The earlier opinion and materials are here.

US Opposes Michigan’s Bid to Close Chicago Canal in SCT

From SCOTUSBlog:

The federal government, saying that it, too, is worried about an invasive species of fish making its way into Lake Michigan and is doing something about it, urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to turn down the state of Michigan’s new plea for major Court-ordered steps to head off that migration.  It also implied that the Court should not allow Michigan to go ahead with its underlying lawsuit in the Court against Illinois and others, arguing that the proper place for the dispute is in a lower federal court, if anywhere.  The new federal document can be found here.

Continue reading

Omaha Tribe Member’s Challenge to the Eagle Act Fails

The lesson learned, once again, is to request a permit to take eagles. Here are the materials in U.S. v. Bertucci (D. Neb.):

Bertucci R&R

Bertucci DCT Order

Washington Court Reverses Conviction of Non-Indian Who Fished Under Tribal Law

Interesting case. Here is the opinion in State of Washington v. Guidry, a split court (2-1). Here are links to the briefs:

An excerpt:

Larry Guidry appeals his convictions for first degree fish dealing without a license, first degree fish trafficking without a license, four counts of participation of a non-Indian in an Indian fishery for commercial purposes, and four counts of first degree commercial fishing without a license. He argues that the trial court should have dismissed the charges against him because he lawfully fished under the Nisqually Tribal Code. He also argues that insufficient evidence supports his convictions for fish dealing and fish trafficking and that the trial court erred in imposing restitution. We reverse his convictions, vacate the restitution order, and remand.