Quileute & Quinault response to request for rehearing/rehearing en banc in ocean U&A case

Here is Quileute & Quinault’s response, addressing issues such as whether the Stevens treaties must be read together, the meaning of “fish” and whether U&As are species-specific, the proper use of the canons of construction, and what we know of the treaty negotiations at issue here.

Previous coverage here.

Washington has Petitioned for Rehearing/Rehearing En Banc in the Culverts Case


Previous coverage of the 9th Circuit panel decision is here.

UPDATE (8/23/16):

119-Idaho-Montana Amicus

121-Amicus filed

122-1-Amici motion from Klamath basin

122-2-Klamath basin amici brief

UPDATE (5/19/17):

Tribal Response

US Response

The 9th Circuit has affirmed the Culverts decision & the treaty habitat right in W. Wash.

Download opinion in U.S. v. Washington (9th Cir. Jun 27, 2016) here.

The decision is unanimous. Congratulations to all who worked on it through the years and first and foremost to the Tribes who brought it.

Previous coverage and briefs here.

Briefs in Te-Moak Tribe et al v. Interior

Appellants’ Brief

Appellants, the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (“Te-Moak Tribe”), the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (“Timbisha Tribe”), the Western Shoshone Defense Project (“WSDP”), and Great Basin Resource Watch (“GBRW”)(collectively, “the Tribes”) challenge the federal Bureau of Land Management (“BLM’s”) approvals of Barrick Cortez Inc.’s (“Barrick”) Cortez Hills Project (“Project”), a large open pit, cyanide-leach gold mine on Mt. Tenabo, a mountain sacred to many Western Shoshone Indians and in particular to the Te- Moak Tribe and Timbisha Tribe and their members. In this appeal, the Tribes challenge the decision of the district court to deny, in whole or in part, the Tribes’ Motions for Summary Judgment (“SJ Motions”), which sought to overturn the BLM’s actions.

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the action arose under the laws of the United States including: the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-706, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., and their implementing regulations.

American Indian Law Professors Amicus Brief

Coverage of the case’s previous trip to the 9th Circuit here.

Snowbowl En Banc Materials

Indianz.com published the rehearing petitions from the US and the Arizona Snowbowl operators and the oppositions from the Hualapai, Navajo, and Hopi tribes all in one document, here.

Our previous post on this case, with all the materials from the earlier 9th Circuit proceedings (again courtesy of Indianz) is here.

San Francisco Peaks–Arizona Snowbowl Case to be Heard En Banc by 9th Circuit

From Indianz.com:

The sacred San Francisco Peaks in Arizona. Photo   Deborah Lee Soltesz/U.S. Geological Survey.
The sacred San Francisco Peaks in Arizona. Photo Deborah Lee Soltesz/U.S. Geological Survey.

Court Order:
Navajo Nation v. US Forest Service (October 17, 2007)

Earlier Decision:
Navajo Nation v. US Forest Service (March 12, 2007)

Listen to Oral Arguments:
Navajo Nation v. Forest Service (September 14, 2006)

Appeals Court Documents:
Opening Brief [Word DOC] | Reply Brief [Word DOC]

Lower Court Decision:
Navajo Nation v. US Forest Service (January 11, 2006)

Approval Documents:
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Arizona Snowbowl Facilities Improvement | Forest Service Approves Snowmaking at Arizona Snowbowl

Relevant Links:
Save the Peaks Coalition – http://www.savethepeaks.org
Coconino National Forest – http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/index.shtml

For academic scholarship on sacred sites, see Kristen A. Carpenter’s work here.