Federal Court Allows Tribal Intervention in Nevada Lithium Mine Dispute

Here are the relevant materials in Western Watersheds Project v. BLM (D. Nev.):

1 Complaint

43 Reno-Sparks Indian Colony Motion to Intervene

51 Lithium Opposition

54 Reply

59 DCT Order

Federal Court Assumes Federal Jurisdiction over Effort by Nonmember to Claim Easement on Trust Land

Here are the materials so far in Carney v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):

1 Notice of Removal

1-2 Amended Complaint

10 Swinomish Motion to Dismiss

16 State Response to 10

21 Motion to Remand

23 Carney Response to 10

28 Swinomish Reply in Support of 10

32 State Response to 21

33 Swinomish Response to 21

34 Carney Reply in Support of 21

36 DCT Order Denying Motion to Remand

Bivens Action against Former Haskell President over Censorship of “Indian Leader” Newspaper Dismissed

Here are the materials so far in Nally v. Graham (D. Kan.):

1 Complaint

13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

20 Motion to Dismiss Bivens Action

21 Federal Defendants Response to 13

22 Response to 20

27 Reply in Support of 20

33 DCT Order Granting 20

New Student Scholarship on Applying the Culverts Decision to Anishinaabewaki

Nathan Frischkorn has posted “Treaty Rights and Water Habitat: Applying the United States v. Washington Culverts Decision to Anishinaabe Akiing,” forthcoming in the Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

In 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that culverts installed by the state of Washington which reduce the habitat of treaty-protected salmon violate the treaty rights of Tribes in western Washington. That decision—part of the long-running United States v. Washington litigation—has since become known as the “Culverts Case.” Broadly, that decision essentially holds that habitat protection is a component of treaty-protected rights to hunt, fish, and gather. This Article analyzes what habitat protection as a treaty right would mean for the water-based, treaty-protected resources—such as fish and manoomin (wild rice)—of the Anishinaabe Tribes in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. This Article describes relevant treaties to determine what water-based resources those Tribes have treaty rights to, and analyzes relevant precedent that defines or limits the exercise or scope of those rights in state and federal courts. Through interviews with individuals who work with Tribes on issues pertaining to usufructuary rights, this Article identifies specific environmental threats to water-based treaty resources throughout the Great Lakes region. By analogizing those identified threats to the culverts at issue in United States v. Washington, this Article examines what habitat protection as a treaty right would mean in Anishinaabe Akiing.

Second Circuit Holds IGRA Preempts N.Y. Village Bingo Ban

Here is the opinion in Cayuga Nation v. Tanner:

20-1310_opn

Briefs here.

Alaska SCT Rules against Metlakatla Fisher

Here are the available materials in Scudero v. State:

Opinion

Metlakatla Amicus Brief

State Supplemental Brief

Scudero Supplemental Brief

Dylan Hedden & Stacy Leeds on McGirt’s Impact on the Indian Law Canon

Dylan R. Hedden-Nicely and Stacy L. Leeds have published “A Familiar Crossroads: McGirt v. Oklahoma and the Future of Federal Indian Law Canon” in the New Mexico Law Review.

Highly recommended!

Tulsa Law Review Symposium on McGirt

Here:

PDF

Introduction
Mary Kathryn Nagle

PDF

The Past May Be Prologue, But It Does Not Dictate Our Future: This Is the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s Table
Jonodev Chaudhuri

PDF

Reflections on McGirt v. Oklahoma: A Case Team Perspective
Riyaz Kanji, David Giampetroni, and Philip Tinker

PDF

The Indian Treaty Canon and McGirt v. Oklahoma: Righting the Ship
Lauren King

PDF

A Wealth of Sovereign Choices: Tax Implications of McGirt v. Oklahoma and the Promise of Tribal Economic Development
Stacy Leeds and Lonnie Beard

PDF

The Sky Will Not Fall in Oklahoma
Clint Summers

Casenote/Comment

PDF

A Coherent Ethic of Lawyering in Post-McGirt Oklahoma
Julie Combs

Other

PDF

Reclaiming Our Reservation: Mvskoke Tvstvnvke Hoktvke Tuccenet (Etem) Opunayakes
Sarah Deer

Tenth Circuit Rules in Quiet Title Act over 1906 Indian Land Grant

Here are the appellate materials in Bedford v. Nowlin (10th Cir.):

Unpublished opinion

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

DCT Order

“Bad Men” Claim against Diocese and Bank Dismissed

Here are the appellate materials in Montileaux v. Diocese of South Dakota (8th Cir.):

Notice of Appeal + DCT Order

Opening Brief

Private Appellees Brief

Diocese Brief

Reply Brief

Unpublished opinion