Turtle Talk

Plaintiff El Paso Natural Gas Company brought suit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) against Defendants United States of America, United States Department of the Interior, United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, United States Geological Survey, United States Department of Energy, and United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (collectively, “United States”). Doc. 55. Plaintiff has filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Doc. 114. The motion is fully briefed (Docs. 114, 119, 123), and the Court heard oral argument on June 1, 2017. For reasons that follow, the Court rejects the United States’ sovereign immunity defense and will require additional briefing on the question of its CERCLA owner liability.

Ninth Circuit Affirms French v. Starr

June 5, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished order.

Prior posts here.

Federal Claims Court Dismisses Crow Creek Sioux Water Rights Takings Claim

June 5, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Crow Creek has sued the United States through the Department of the Interior alleging a Fifth Amendment taking of its reserved water rights. See Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 576–78, 28 S.Ct. 207, 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Its motion has several bases, including standing, ripeness, and issues related to the statute of limitations. Defendant also contends that the Government’s bare trust relationship with Crow Creek does not provide the “money-mandating” statute or regulation necessary for jurisdiction in this court. See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976).

Plaintiff’s pleadings do not show how damages from an alleged taking could have accrued currently, and oral arguments did not clarify this threshold issue. Nevertheless, plaintiff urged the court to permit sufficient discovery for it to address defendant’s jurisdictional arguments. Given the opportunity to inquire into the extent of defendant’s diversion of its rights in the waters of the Missouri River, the Tribe argued it would be able to definitively establish damages. Plaintiff believes that granting defendant’s dispositive motion at this stage would be premature.

Crow Creek would pursue expensive and time-consuming litigation to find some evidence that defendant has taken an amount of water that the Tribe could have used for another, unnamed purpose. For example, counsel stated during oral arguments that plaintiff could hire experts to submit reports on various methods of obtaining appraised values for those waters. Plaintiff believes that those values would supply evidence of the damages that its case now lacks.

The relationship between Native American tribes and the United States is a special one in this court; plaintiff is entitled to every latitude in its efforts to establish a cause of action. In this case, however, opening discovery in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss would result in a waste of resources for both parties. We must grant defendant’s motion for the reasons described below.

Inquest Examining Police Killing at Muckleshoot Comes to an End

June 3, 2017Ann Tweedy

Here.

Previous coverage here.

Paramilitary security tracked and targeted DAPL opponents as “jihadists,” docs show

June 2, 2017Teresa Walrod1 Comment

From Grist.org:

“As people nationwide rallied last year to support the Standing Rock Sioux’s attempts to block the Dakota Access Pipeline, a private security firm with experience fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan launched an intrusive military-style surveillance and counterintelligence campaign against the activists and their allies, according to internal company documents.”

HERE.

Michigan and Oregon Adopt Pro Hac Vice Court Rules for ICWA Cases

June 2, 2017June 2, 2017Kate Fort

Edited to add that Nebraska deserves credit for codifying this back in 2015, which I knew and forgot until today when I was doing some research. The provision is at Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-1504(3), a citation which I have now memorized so I won’t forget it again.

This spring both Michigan and Oregon have changed their court rules to allow out of state attorneys to appear in ICWA cases on behalf of a tribe (Michigan and Oregon) or parent or Indian custodian (Oregon). Both waive the pro hac fees, and do not require the attorneys to associate with local counsel.

Michigan’s rule, MCR 8.126, is here. The rule is effective September 1.

Oregon’s rule, UTCR 3. 170(9), is here. The rule is effective August 1.

In both of these cases, the rule was a result of a recommendation and work from the respective Tribal State Judicial Forums.

In the hopes this is something other states may be willing to take on (hi California! Oh hey, Washington!), we’ve started a page with resources here.

Tenth Circuit Remands Great Plains Lending Dispute for Jurisdictional Discovery on Immunity Defense

June 1, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the unpublished opinion in Finn v. Great Plains Lending LLC.

Briefs and other materials here.

E.D. Okla. Rules in Favor of Cherokee Nation and Remands UKB Trust Application

June 1, 2017Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Download the documents and materials in the matter of The Cherokee Nation v. Jewell et al, 14-cv-00428 (E.D. Okla. May 31, 2017):

The Court ruled a 2011 BIA decision approving an amended land into trust application of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee was arbitrary and capricious. On remand, the BIA must obtain Cherokee Nation’s consent to the application per its treaty rights over former reservation land, give full consideration to the jurisdictional conflicts between Cherokee Nation and UKB, the resulting administrative burdens on the BIA, and the effects of Carcieri.