Winnemucca Indian Colony v. United States Cert Petition

Here:

Questions presented:

(1) Is the United States’ promise to provide the Winnemucca Indian Colony, a federally recognized Tribe with lands held in trust established by an Executive Order and a separate legislative act, coupled with the government’s nearly exclusive statutory and regulatory control over the water on Indian lands, sufficient to entitle an Indian tribe to money damages when the United States breaches its fiduciary duty to protect the natural resources on those Indian lands?

(2) Did the Federal Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, err when it affirmed dismissal of the Winnemucca Indian Colony’s third claim for relief – Breach of Trust – Water?

(3) Can the Winnemucca Indian Colony state a cognizable claim for breach of trust against the United States in relation to BIA failure to prevent trespass and theft of natural resources by third parties, under the Winters doctrine and 25 C.F.R. § 152.22?

Lower court materials here.

New York Federal Court Holds IHS Must Accept PL638 Contract re: Water and Sanitation

Here are the materials in St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. United States (N.D. N.Y.):

25-1 Tribe Motion for Summary J

29-1 Federal Cross Motion

30 Tribe Reply

32 Federal Reply

35 DCT Order

Ute Water Rights Trust Breach Suit Moves Forward

Here are the materials on remand in Ute Indian Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

65 Second Amended Complaint

72 Motion to Dismiss

73 Response

76 Reply

78 CFC Opinion

Prior post here.

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.