Here.
The Atlantic: “Will Bears Ears Remain a National Monument?”
Here.
Here.
Here is the opinion in Wyandot Nation of Kansas v. United States.
An excerpt:
The Wyandot Nation of Kansas (“Wyandot Nation”) is a Native American tribe allegedly tracing its ancestry to the Historic Wyandot Nation. It claims to be a federally recognized Indian tribe and a successor-in-interest to all of the treaties between the Historic Wyandot Nation and the United States. On June 1, 2015, Wyandot Nation filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging that the United States had breached its trust and fiduciary obligations with respect to two trusts that resulted from prior treaties, including one related to amounts payable under a treaty signed in 1867 and one related to the Huron Cemetery. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and standing. Wyandot Nation appeals. We affirm.
Briefs here.
Here are the materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Zinke (E.D. Cal.):
Download(PDF): Tribal Listening Sessions on E.O. 13871: Reorganization of the Executive Branch
Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Michael S. Black, invites Tribal leaders to attend one of the listed listening sessions to provide input on improving “efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability” at the Department of the Interior.
DATES
Here is the notice of appeal:
And the IHS letter:
Here.
Here are updated pleadings in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):
194 DAPL Reply re Vance Resp to Ct Order
195 SRST Opp to ACOE & DAPL Mtns for Partial Sum Judg
198 Consol Reply to Motion to Amend Complaint
198 CRST Motion to Extend Time
200 SRST Reply to Motion to Amend Complaint
201 ACOE Reply in Support of Mtn Partial Summ Judg re SRST
203 DAPL Reply in Support of ACOE Cross-Mtn for Partial Summ Judgment
205 Opinion re DAPL Mtn for Protective Order
205 Order re DAPL Mtn for Protective Order
207 CRST Reply in Support of MPSJ & Opp Cross-Mtns
208 CRST Reply in Supp of MPSJ & Opp Cross-Mtns209 Joint Appendix
213 DAPL Reply in Support of Mtn for Partial Summary Judgment
216-1 DAPL Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel
219 SRST Response to Motion to Compel
220 Intervenor Motion to Supplement the Record
221 Notice of Addition of Documents to the Record
222 Oglala Opp to Mtn to Compel
223 ACOE Resp to Mtn to Compel
224 ACOE Motion to Extend Time
225 DAPL Reply in Support of Motion to Compel
226 DAPL Unopp Mtn to Intervene
Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):
An excerpt:
Plaintiff Navajo Nation (“Nation”) seeks relief for Defendants’ violations of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended, 25 U.S.C. § 5301 et seq. (“ISDEAA”), and regulations promulgated thereunder, and for Defendants’ breach of a self-determination contract made under the ISDEAA. Under the ISDEAA and governing regulations, Defendants may not decline an Indian tribe’s renewal proposal for a self-determination contract, or contract funding, if it is substantially the same as the prior contract. The Nation submitted a renewal proposal to the Department of the Interior (“Department”) for their contract covering operations of the Navajo Nation Judicial Branch that proposed funding in the amount of $17,055,477 for calendar year (“CY”) 2017. This was the same amount that the Nation sought for CY 2016 and was essentially the same amount that the Nation had previously sought for CY 2014 and CY 2015 ($17,055,517) and which had been approved by operation of law because of Defendants’ failure to decline the Nation’sCY 2014 funding proposal within the 90-day review period established by law. Nonetheless, Defendants partially declined the Nation’s renewal proposal for all funding in excess of $1,429,177.00 for CY 2017. Because Defendants’ action violates the ISDEAA and applicable regulations, the Nation is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.
Here are the materials in Nooksack Indian Tribe v. Zinke (W.D. Wash.):
19 – Nooksack Tribe’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
26 – Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion and Cross-Motion to Dismiss
29 – Nooksack Tribe’s Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
39 – Secretary’s Reply re Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in Lightning Fire v. United States (D.S.D.):
You must be logged in to post a comment.