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

Please see the strongly worded, if misguided, commentary from Judge Leon in Solonex v. Haaland, who sees 40 years of delay on a drilling permit and calls it “Kafkaesque.” It’s hard to disagree with that sentiment — though I wish the court were more understanding that tribal and Indian efforts to stop the drilling proposal began when there were virtually no legal protections for tribes and Native citizens to utilize. It’s time to acknowledge that this drilling should never have been approved over tribal and Indian objections and the RESPECT Act takes us a long way down the road to preventing this B.S. from happening over and over again.
Here is the order in Solonex LLC v. Haaland (D.D.C.):
Prior post on the D.C. Circuit decision from which this case is on remand here.
Briefs:
Here is the opinion in Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation.
Briefs:
Klamath irrigation Opening Brief
Lower court materials here.

Here are the materials so far in Cherokee Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):
42 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
54-1 Federal Motion to Dismiss
55-1 Federal Motion for Protective Order
60 Cherokee Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
85 DCT Order Re Protective Order
88-1 Cherokee Motion for Summary J
98 Cherokee Motion for Summary J
99 Cherokee Reply in Support of MSJ

Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. United States (D. Utah):
80 US Motion for Partial Reconsideration
90 DCT Order Granting Reconsideration

Here:
Here are the district court materials:
31 [minute order dismissing case]

Here is the complaint in Pueblo of Jemez v. United States (D.N.M.):


Here is the complaint in Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. United States (D. Mont.):

Here is the petition in Dept. of the Interior v. Navajo Nation:
Question presented:
Whether the federal government owes the Navajo Nation an affirmative, judicially enforceable fiduciary duty to assess and address the Navajo Nation’s need for water from particular sources, in the absence of any substantive source of law that expressly establishes such a duty.
Here is the petition and the partial acquiescence by Justice in Arizona v. Navajo Nation:

Questions presented:
I. Does the Ninth Circuit Opinion, allowing the Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the Secretary to develop a plan to meet the Nation’s water needs and manage the mainstream of the LBCR so as not to in- terfere with that plan, infringe upon this Court’s re- tained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the LBCR mainstream in Arizona v. California?
II. Can the Nation state a cognizable claim for breach of trust consistent with this Court’s holding in Jicarilla based solely on unquantified implied rights to water under the Winters Doctrine?
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials (So far) in Navajo Agricultural Products Industries v. United States (D.N.M.):

You must be logged in to post a comment.