Here are the new materials in Birdbear v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
366 Plaintiffs Post Trial Brief
Prior post here.

Here are the new materials in Birdbear v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
366 Plaintiffs Post Trial Brief
Prior post here.

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.

Here are the materials in Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Haaland (now Burgum) (D.S.D.):
63 Federal Motion for Summary J
Prior post here.

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.

Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe v. United States (D.D.C.):
35 US Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-3, 5
102 Ute Motion for Summary J on Remaining Counts

Complaint here.
Here is the complaint in Susanville Indian Rancheria v. Beccera (E.D. Cal.):

Here are the updated materials in Cherokee Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):
111 Federal Objection to Magistrate Report
Prior post here.

Here are the updated materials in Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Prior post here.

This paragraph is brutal:
The evidence presented to the Court at trial was “both overwhelming and extremely underwhelming.” (Tr. Court, 1426:20). Witness testimony was poignant at times, on one occasion moving some in the courtroom audience to tears. Ultimately, however, the Tribe failed to shoulder its burden of proof; and despite the Court’s serious misgivings about the treatment of the Tribe, the Tribe did not show that the United States’ failure to repair the crumbling Building violated trust obligations or constituted to a taking. Even if the Tribe met the elements of a breach of trust or takings claim, its proof of damages was entirely unconvincing, dependent on construction costs in the city limits of Chicago and rental values derived from cursory internet searches. Accordingly, the United States is entitled to judgment.
Here are materials in Quechan Indian Tribe v. United States (S.D. Cal.):
Doc 404 Findings Conclusion and Order
Prior post here.

You must be logged in to post a comment.