trust relationship

The Stranger on the Swinomish Tribe’s Fight against BNSF’s Railroad

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “How One Tribe Could Slow the Rate of “Bomb Trains” Through Seattle.”An excerpt:

The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community couldn’t have known that more than a century later, crude-oil trains would be rattling along that very route—and across reservation land—carrying with them a well-established risk of derailing and exploding. In fact, the only way today’s Swinomish people knew that trains full of crude oil were passing through their land was from media reports in 2012. They’re not alone. As it stands, railroads still don’t have to disclose crude-by-rail routes.

California Indian Law Association Files FOIA Suit over SG’s Confession of Error over Tee-Hit-Ton and Sandoval Cases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in California Indian Law Association v. Dept. of Justice (D. D.C.):

2015-04-10 ECF 1 complaint

An excerpt:

On April 8, 2011, at the 36th Annual Indian Law Conference of the Federal Bar Association, in New Mexico, a video recording was presented to all attendees consisting of a speech by Neal Katyal in his capacity as the Acting Solicitor General of the United States (“ASG”) (hereinafter, “Katyal Speech”). The Katyal Speech involved an apology or confession of error for misrepresentations by the OSG to the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913), and Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955), and background regarding United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011), and United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S. Ct. 2313 (2011), which were both then pending before the Supreme Court.

Update:

For a limited time you can download the video of the presentation here.

US and Industry Defeat Challenge to Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon Mine

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams (D. Ariz.):

140-1 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary J

146-1 US Motion for Summary J

147-1 Intervenors Motion for Summary J

151 Plaintiffs Reply

155 US Reply

156 Intervenors Reply

166 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This case arises out of the proposed renewal of operations at the Canyon Mine in Northern Arizona. The Canyon Mine is a breccia pipe uranium mine located six miles south of Grand Canyon National Park, in the Kaibab National Forest, and four miles north of Red Butte, a culturally and religiously significant site for the Havasupai and other tribes.

Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona Sues United States for Breach of Trust

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Inter-Tribal Council Of Arizona Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

1 Complaint

Hopi Tribe Trust Breach Claim re: Safe Drinking Water Fails in Federal Circuit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Hopi Tribe v. United States.

An excerpt:

The Hopi Tribe filed suit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking damages to cover the cost of providing safe drinking water on the Hopi Reservation. In order to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction, the Hopi Tribe must identify a statute or regulation imposing a specific obligation on the United States to provide adequate drinking water that would give rise to a claim for money damages. Because the Court of Federal Claims properly concluded that the Hopi Tribe failed to identify any source for a money-mandating obligation, we affirm

Briefs:

Hopi Tribe Brief

US Answer Brief

Hopi Reply

Lower court materials here.

 

CSKT Allotment Owner’s Trust Breach Claims Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Liberty v. Jewell (D. Mont.):

19 US Motion to Dismiss

24 Response

25 Reply

26 DCT Order

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Flute v. United States — Sand Creek Massacre Trust Accounting Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here:

Flute Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

Flute Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Yakama/Umatilla Prevail against Fish and Wildlife Service in Sacred Sites Question

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Fish and Wildlife Service (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

49 Umatilla Motion for Summary J

50 Yakama Motion for Summary J

52 FWS Motion for Summary J

54 Yakama Reply

55 Umatilla Response

56 FWS Reply

60 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Although the NHPA and its accompanying regulations do not mandate a particular substantive outcome, its procedural requirements are obligatory. This Court would be derelict in its duties if it failed to enforce the minimal procedural protections guaranteed the Tribes. True, the Service, after reopening consultation with the parties, may reasonably conclude that the expanded program of wildflower tours will have no adverse effect on the Lalíik TCP. But this hypothetical cannot influence the Court’s current analysis. Instead, the relevant focus is whether the Service complied with the relevant statute and regulations: did the Service “stop, look, listen,” and carefully consider tribal input before moving ahead with the greatly expanded undertaking? Or, instead, did the Service stop, look at past tribal consultations on similar proposals, and inappropriately assume that each Tribe would merely voice its blanket opposition rather than providing additional insight to or suggested mitigation measures for the expanded undertaking? Because this Court concludes the latter occurred here, the only remedy is to set aside the Agency’s no adverse effect finding on the updated proposal and order the Service to reengage in the consultation process before conducting any additional wildflower tours within the Lalíik TCP, if it still chooses to pursue the undertaking.

Mishewal Wappo Tribe Loses Trust Breach/Federal Recognition Claim

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Mishewal Wappo Tribe  of Alexander Valley v. Jewell (N.D. Cal.):

197 DCT Order

Briefs are here.

Trust Breach Claims for Compensation re: Flooding of Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in LeBeau v. United States (D. S.D.):

11 US Motion to Dismiss

14 Opposition

17 Reply

18 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs’ claims accrued decades ago and are therefore barred by the statute of limitations. As this court stated in 2013, it is sympathetic to the claims made by plaintiffs. But even sympathetic claims must comply with jurisdictional requirements. Because there is no valid waiver of sovereign immunity, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Plaintiffs may deserve compensation, but that compensation must come from Congress.

Prior suit materials are here.