Here are the materials in Moody v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
California COA Affirms Dismissal of Workers’ Comp. Challenge to Blue Lake Rancheria Business
Here is the opinion in American Cargo Express v. Superior Court:
Federal Court Dismisses Seminole Challenge to Florida Utilities Tax
Here are the materials in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Biegalski (S.D. Fla.):
MSU NALSA Welcomes NIGA Chair Ernie Stevens, Jr. & Former Wisconsin Oneida Chair Debbie Thundercloud
Here:
Friday Job Announcements
Job vacancies are posted on Friday. Some announcements might still appear throughout the week. If you would like your Indian law job posted on Turtle Talk, please email indigenous@law.msu.edu.
Department of the Interior
Advisor for Tribal Relations, Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations, Arlington, V.A. Serves as a principal liaison and point of contact for Tribal Nations and stakeholder groups implementing land consolidation activities at eligible Reservations. The Advisor for Tribal Relations assists in proactively managing Reservation-specific strategies designed to reduce fractionation. Same announcement for federal employees here.
Water Protector Legal Collective
Staff Attorney, Criminal Defense. Represent Water Protectors on no-DAPL state charges, perform administrative matters including the Pro Hac Vice Program.
Previous Friday Job Announcements: 10/6/2017
Today in Racism against Indians
Here.
An upstate New York politician criticizes a mural depicting American Indians, saying they’re too “dark,” and asking why the mural couldn’t instead depict the town’s “original heritage.”
Carrie Garrow & Kate Fort at NAICJA
Here:
Article About the Little Traverse Reservation Boundary Case
Native America Calling Show on Gun Control
This show aired on Tuesday. Guest commentators included Deb Haaland for the first half and John Dossett and Ann Tweedy for the second half.
Environmental Assessment Not Vacated on Remand in Dakota Access
Here are the documents in the matter of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe et al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al (D.D.C. 16-cv-01534):
Other materials posted here.
Excerpt:
In light of the “serious possibility” that the Corps will be able to substantiate its prior conclusions, the Court finds that vacatur is not the appropriate remedy in this case. That determination does not, however, excuse Defendants from giving serious consideration to the errors identified in this Court’s prior Opinion. Compliance with NEPA cannot be reduced to a bureaucratic formality, and the Court expects the Corps not to treat remand as an exercise in filling out the proper paperwork post hoc. After the agency’s further work on remand, the parties may well disagree over the sufficiency of its conclusion. If and when such a dispute arises, they will again have the opportunity to address whether Defendants have in fact fulfilled their statutory obligations.
You must be logged in to post a comment.