Since 2007, the Indigenous Law Conference commissions one American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Canadian First Nations artist each year. Art is featured on conference materials and the website. For more information and to submit, visit www.indigenouslawconference.com/call-for-art. Deadline to submit is tomorrow April 1, 2021.
Here are the materials in Cherokee Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):
54-1 Motion to Dismiss Common Law Claims
55-1 Federal Motion for Protective Order
68 Magistrate Report Denying 54
Prior materials here.
Here are the materials in JLLJ Development LLC v. Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority (W.D. Mich.):
32 DCT Order re Subject Matter Jurisdiction
34 JLLJ Brief re Subject Matter Jurisdiction
35 Kewadin Casinos Brief re Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Prior post with earlier briefs here.
Here are the materials in United States v. Stately (D. Minn.):
129 Memorandum re Motion to Suppress
130 Memorandum re Motion to Suppress
134 Memorandum re Motion to Dismiss
138 Government’s Response to 118
139 Government’s Response to 40
140 Government’s Response to 43
Here is the unpublished opinion in Bacy v. Chickasaw Nation Industries Inc.
Briefs:
Lower court opinion here:
ABA SEER’s Native American Resources Committee is co-sponsoring, in which Turtle Talk readers might be interested:
Alexander Tallchief Skibine has posted “Textualism and the Indian Canons of Statutory Construction,” forthcoming in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
When interpreting statutes enacted for the benefit or regulation of Indians or construing treaties signed with Indian Nations, courts are supposed to apply any of five specific canons of construction relating to the field of Indian Affairs. Through an examination of the Supreme Court’s cases involving statutory or treaty interpretation relating to Indian nations since 1987, this Article demonstrates that the Court has generally been faithful in applying canons relating to treaty interpretation or abrogation. The Court has also respected the canon requiring unequivocal expression of congressional intent before finding an abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity. However, there are two other canons that the Court almost never applies. One requires clear intent to interfere with tribal sovereign rights, the other requires statutes to be construed liberally with ambiguities resolved to the benefit of Indians. After reviewing the possible reasons why textualist jurists might be opposed to the use of substantive canons, this Article makes two arguments to remedy any reluctance to use these two canons: First, these canons have constitutional roots and as such even textualists on the Court should not be reluctant to use them. Secondly, the canon applicable to abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity should also be applied to statutes interfering with tribal sovereign rights. There are no normative reasons to treat abrogation of sovereign immunity differently than other statutory interference with tribal sovereignty.
Highly recommended!
Here is the complaint in Pueblo of Laguna v. Regan (D.N.M.):
An excerpt:
13. The Agencies repealed the 2015 Clean Water Rule and then reversed their longstanding policy by promulgating a new, much narrower interpretation of the “waters of the United States.” Definition of “Waters of the United States” — Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules, 84 Fed. Reg. 56,626 (Oct. 22, 2019) [hereinafter the 2019 Repeal Rule]; The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States,” 85 Fed. Reg. 22,250 (Apr. 21, 2020) [hereinafter the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule]. The 2020 Navigable Waters Rule follows the directive of Executive Order 13,778, but without due regard for established law.
14. The 2019 Repeal Rule and 2020 Navigable Waters Rule are inconsistent with both the CWA’s objective of “maintain[ing] the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” and the Rapanos significant nexus test.
15. The 2019 Repeal Rule and the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule harm the Pueblos by removing federal CWA water pollution protections from many of the ephemeral streams and other waterbodies that sustain the Pueblos. These rules remove CWA protections from 79% to 97% of stream miles in the Pueblo of Laguna. These rules remove CWA protections from 94% of stream miles in the Jemez watershed and 87% of stream miles on Jemez Pueblo trust lands.
16. Where a waterbody is not determined to be a “water of the United States,” the Pueblos alone are left to establish and administer water pollution control programs at their own expense.17. However, the Pueblos rely on the Agencies to implement nearly all of the CWA’s pollution programs on their behalf and do not have the financial or administrative resources or capacity to administer these programs themselves.
18. Further, both Pueblos rely on the federal jurisdiction of the CWA to protect themselves from upstream pollution.
19. For the Pueblos, high water quality is essential to day-to-day life, as well as
cultural and religious practices.20. The removal of federal jurisdiction creates the imminent risk of the degradation and destruction of the Pueblos’ waters and would harm the Pueblos’ agriculture, as well as cultural and religious practices.
Register here.
Featuring Fletcher and Patty Ferguson-Bohnee.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.