treaty rights

Anishinaabek Leader on the Canadian Indian Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the North Bay Nugget:

Message from Grand Council Chief John Beaucage–

Prior to contact, the Anishinaabe lived in peace and harmony with each other, living off the bounty of our Mother Earth. We acknowledged each other- our distinct bands and traditional territories. We respected our boundaries — not borders — out of respect for our neighbours. We harvested only what was needed, always mindful of sacred law and ensuring our food sources — the plants, animals, birds and fish — would remain abundant for seven generations into the future.

We governed ourselves according to that same sacred law. The Creator gave us the Clan System as a means to govern our day-to-day affairs, set priorities, and look after the needs of the community as a whole.

Continue reading →

Russell Busch on Lower Elwha Dam Removal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Russell Busch has published “Tribal Advocacy for Elwha River Dams Removal on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula” in the Golden Gate Environmental Law Journal. Here is a taste:

“Torpedo the dams, full speed ahead!” This inversion of Farragut’s famous order seemed appropriate when offered at a celebration of the Elwha Act’s passage, but turned out to be premature. Dam removal is now scheduled to begin in 2012, twenty years after passage of the Elwha Act and a century after the first dam blocked the river.

For the Elwha Tribe, which advocated and worked so tenaciously for dam removal, the success of its efforts will be affirmed only when the United States has actually cleared the way for the salmon to begin reclaiming the spawning grounds of their ancestors. In the meantime, the Tribe, like the fish who keep faith by returning each year to the base of the lower dam, waits patiently for the day the dams finally come down.

Christian McMillen Paper Presentations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Legal History Blog:

On Friday, January 23, at 12:30 PM, Christian McMillen, Department of History, University of Virginia, will present two papers: “The Historians’ Brief in Carcieri v Kempthorne,” an Indian law case from the Supreme Court’s current term, and “Proof, Evidence and History in Indigenous Land Claims,” a paper blending history with the law in the early years of Indian claims. McMillen is the author of Making Indian Law: The Hualapai Land Case and the Birth of Ethnohistory (Yale University Press, 2007), which has recently won book prizes from the American Society for Legal History and the William Nelson Cromwell Foundation.

This is a webcasted event at the Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.

Saginaw Chippewa v. Granholm Update — Motions to Certify Case for Interlocutory Appeal Denied

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The City of Mount Pleasant and the County of Isabella had moved the Eastern District of Michigan to certify the earlier decision not to allow the defense of laches for an interlocutory appeal to the Sixth Circuit, but all the other parties (including co-defendant State of Michigan) objected. And so the district court rejected the motions.

city-of-mt-pleasant-motion-for-certification

isabella-county-motion-for-certification

state-of-michigan-opposition-to-motions

us-response-to-motions

sag-chip-response-to-motions

sag-chip-v-granhold-dct-order-on-motion-for-certification

Kristen Carpenter on Interpretative Sovereignty

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kristen Carpenter has posted her paper, “Interpretative Sovereignty: A Research Agenda,” on SSRN. It is forthcoming from the American Indian Law Review. Here is the abstract:

In federal Indian law, the treaty operates as our foundational legal text. Reflecting centuries-old historical political arrangements between Indian nations and the United States, treaties remain vital legal instruments that decide dozens of legal cases each year. Yet, these treaties — originally drafted in English by the federal government, following negotiations with tribal representatives who usually spoke their own languages — present a number of ambiguities for contemporary courts. The dominant model of treaty interpretation is one in which judges interpret treaties in a manner they they believe to reflect Indians’ understanding of treaty terms and, more generally, to promote the interests of Indian nations. While this liberal approach to treaty interpretation has secured a number of important Indian rights in the courts, it does not necessarily reflect the ways in which Indians actually perceived treaty terms in their own languages and cultures.

Continue reading →

Primer on Exercising Inland Treaty Rights

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This is a great resource developed and published by Olson Bzdok and Howard.

Public Rights to Fish and Hunt on Lakes and Streams: A Primer for Michigan’s Indian Tribes

Also, here.

Interlochen Public Radio on the Great Lakes Compact

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From IPR:

Listen Now

INTERLOCHEN PUBLIC RADIO (2008-11-19) Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak will try again to address what he calls a serious flaw in the Great Lakes Compact. That’s the new law that bans diversions of water out of the basin. State legislatures and the Congress approved it overwhelmingly. But critics say the Compact leaves a door open for international companies to put unlimited quantities of water in containers and sell it. IPR’s Bob Allen reports.

Federal Criminal Jurisdiction over Ontonagon Reservation in the Upper Peninsula

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Kudos to Jeff Davis for this one! The United States Attorney’s Office in Grand Rapids is prosecuting the taking of tribal timber on trust land on the Ontonagon Reservation of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. The defendant argued the reservation was no longer reservation land, but Judge Robert Holmes Bell rejected the motion. Interesting case!

genschow-indictment

genschow-motion-to-dismiss

us-response-to-motion-to-dismiss-genschow

ontonagon-band-constitution

united-states-v-genschow-dct-opinion

Ottawa Tribe v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources — Sixth Circuit Briefing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Please see our previous post on this case here (it links to the briefs and other materials in the lower court).

Here is the Ottawa Tribe’s opening brief: appellant-brief

And here is the amicus brief signed by the National Congress of American Indians and several Michigan tribes on the laches question: brief-amici-curiae

And now the State of Ohio’s brief: brief-of-defendant-appellee-director-of-ohio-dept-of-natural

Washington State v. Cayenne — Wash. SCT Rules Against Treaty Fishing Rights of Convict

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

We’ve previously noted this case during the petitioning phase (here are the briefs favoring and opposing review by the Washington Supreme Court). The Washington Supreme Court now has reversed the lower court’s decision to recognize the treaty right of Indians convicted under state law to continue to exercise those treaty rights even after the conviction. Here are the materials:

Washington Supreme Court Materials

washington-ag-amicus-brief

state-supplemental-brief

cayenne-supplemental-brief

state-v-cayenne-wash-sct-opinion

Continue reading →