Court of Federal Claims Issues Opinion in Last(?) of Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona v. United States Breach of Trust Claims

Here are the updated materials in Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

Prior post here.

Case tag here.

Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Winnemucca Indian Colony v. United States

Here are the materials:

Lower court materials here.

D.C. Federal Court Rejects Osage Nation’s Suit against Interior over Mineral Estate Regulation Funding

Here are materials in Osage Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

15 Federal Motion for Summary J

17 Opposition

18 Reply

22 DCT Order

Complaint here.

“This is some bullshit right here.”

Blast from the (recent, but what feels like a loooong time ago) Past: Interior Dept. Report on Impacts of Federal Dams on Salmon in the PNW

Here:

Federal Claims Court Finds No Compensable Trust Breach in MHA Nation Members’ Royalties Dispute

Here are the new materials in Birdbear v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

365 US Post Trial Brief

366 Plaintiffs Post Trial Brief

376 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Federal Claims Court Dismisses Osage Headrights Trust Breach Suit

Here are new materials in Fletcher v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

30 Motion to Dismiss

33 Response

36 Reply

55 Order

Monte Mills and Martin Nie on Tribal Co-Stewardship of Federal Public Lands

Monte Mills and Martin Nie have published “Planning A New Paradigm: Tribal Co-Stewardship and Federal Public Lands Planning” in the Colorado Environmental Law Journal.

Here is the abstract:

Planning is a critical part of the federal government’s management of the nation’s public lands. Over the last halfcentury, Congress has mandated that each of the four major public land management agencies; the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, develop and rely on plans to guide their oversight of public lands and resources. Virtually every activity or decision affecting these public lands can be traced back to language in—or missing from—a plan. But, despite the importance of planning, the process by which each agency develops and implements plans presents complex challenges for both the agencies and those interested in participating in or influencing both planning and resultant management decisions. These challenges can frustrate, if not derail, the incorporation of meaningful changes in planning documents that, given the often decades-long lifespan of a plan, could have long-term impact. The federal Departments of Interior and Agriculture—home to the four major land management agencies—are enhancing their engagement with Native Nations in the co-stewardship of public lands and resources. Given its importance to the management of public lands and resources, planning is key to these efforts, especially because most plans now, in effect, do little to consider the interests of Native Nations. Thus, although federal and tribal co-stewardship covers a range of activities, the relationship between co-stewardship and planning offers one of the most powerful avenues for reshaping the future of federal-tribal relations in the management of public lands and resources. This Article provides the first comprehensive effort to align federal public land planning with tribal co-stewardship through an analysis of the statutory, regulatory, and procedural planning requirements relevant to each of the four major federal public land management agencies. The Article also analyzes various plans and planning efforts to offer a roadmap for how Native Nations and their federal partners can use planning to spark and sustain a new era of tribal co-stewardship of federal lands and resources.

South Dakota Federal Court Rules for Feds in Tribal School Overspending Case

Here are the materials in Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Haaland (now Burgum) (D.S.D.):

32 Amended Complaint

63 Federal Motion for Summary J

76 Response

77 Reply

85 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Manuel Lewis (UMLS) on Tribal Sovereignty and the Decline of the Administrative State

Manuel Lewis has posted “The Decline of the Administrative State and its Potential Effects on Tribal Sovereignty” on the Michigan Journal of Environmental and Administrative Law’s blog.

An excerpt:

The federal government of the United States, including federal agencies, owes a trust responsibility to Tribes. The contemporary federal administrative state has given greater authority over agency decisions to the federal judiciary while simultaneously reducing government funding for various agencies’ operations. As a result, it is unclear that the federal government will continue to adhere to its trust responsibility in agency actions. Failure to account for Tribal governments in the current administrative state is a violation of the United States’ duty to Tribes and calls for greater advocacy to ensure the protection of Tribal interests—both in federal agencies and in federal courts.

This bullshit AI art is no reflection on Manny’s great work. (Look at those cheeks!)

Utah Federal Court Rejects Ute Tribe Demand to Restore Federal Land to Tribal Ownership

Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe v. United States (D.D.C.):

35 US Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-3, 5

46 Opposition

48 Reply

76 DCT Order

102 Ute Motion for Summary J on Remaining Counts

103-1 US Cross-Motion

105 State Joinder of 103

109 Ute Reply

110 US Reply

111 State Reply

117 DCt Order

Complaint here.