Summary Judgment Briefs in Turunen v. Michigan DNR — Treaty Right to Farm Pigs

Here are the materials in Turunen v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (W.D. Mich.):

39 MDNR Motion for Summary J

42 Turunen Response

47 MDNR Reply

The claim survived an earlier motion to dismiss here.

Federal Court Allows KBIC Member’s Treaty Rights Case re: Pig Farming to Proceed

Here is the order denying Michigan’s motion to dismiss in Turunen v. Creagh (W.D. Mich.):

DCT Order

Briefs here.

Prior posts here and here.

Briefs in Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Member’s Treaty Rights Claim

Here are the briefs in Turunen v. Creagh (W.D. Mich.):

Turunen Opposition to MTD

Michigan Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

Turunen Opposition

Michigan Reply

Amended complaint here.

Update in KBIC Member Suit against Michigan over Pig Farming

Here is the first amended complaint in Turunen v. Creagh (W.D. Mich.):

Turunen First Amended Complaint

Michigan previously moved to dismiss here:

Michigan Motion to Dismiss

First post was here.

KBIC Member Sues Michigan DNR over State Regs Affecting Pig Farming

Here is the complaint in Turenen v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources (W.D. Mich.):

Turunen Complaint

An excerpt:

Plaintiff is a family farmer and a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) residing and farming in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Plaintiff has been raising crops and livestock for the past 23 years on land located in the territory ceded to the United States of America via the 1842 Treaty between the United States and the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, 7 Stat. 591 (the 1842 Treaty). Plaintiff’s farming operations are conducted pursuant to rights reserved in Article II of the 1842 Treaty and pursuant to a license from KBIC. Plaintiff’s treaty-protected farming activities are being threatened by the policies and activities of Defendants which seek to destroy a certain agri-industry in the State of Michigan, so-called hunting estates. To achieve this questionable goal Defendants have sought to prohibit Plaintiff’s pigs through an Invasive Species Order which literally can be applied to any pig in existence. Further, Defendants’ policies make no provision for Plaintiff’s treaty-protected farming activities and Defendants’ seek to impose their regulatory schemes upon Plaintiff. Plaintiff invokes this Court’s jurisdiction in order to protect her treaty reserved right to farm within the territory ceded to the United States by the 1842 Treaty.

Brian Pierson on Wisconsin Indian Treaty Rights and Proposed Mining Activities


An excerpt:

The Wisconsin Legislature has approved amendments to Wisconsin law intended to pave the way for Gogebic Taconite to mine iron ore in the Penokee Hills of Ashland County. Wisconsin’s tribes have been outspoken in their opposition. The Bad River Chippewa, whose reservation lies directly in the path of any mine runoff, has been especially vocal.

The six Chippewa tribes have asserted that their treaties with the federal government give them special status and entitle their concerns to greater weight. They are right.

By the 1842 treaty at La Pointe, the Chippewa ceded to the United States approximately 12 million acres, including the Penokee Hills, receiving in return an amount that the Indian Claims Commission later called “unconscionable.” A treaty, the Supreme Court observed in United States vs. Winans, is “not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of right from them – a reservation of those not granted.” In the 1842 treaty, the Chippewa reserved “usufructuary” rights in the territory they ceded, including the right to hunt, fish, trap, harvest wild rice and engage in other activities to make a living from the land.