Here is the complaint:
Alabama-Coushatta Tribe v. United States
Alabama-Coushatta Tribes Sues US for Failure to Pay Land Claims Judgment
Here is the complaint:
aboriginal title
Tzeachten First Nation v. Canada Lands Co.
An application by Canada Lands Co. to dismiss an action brought by Chief Joe Hall on behalf of the members of Tzeachten First Nation, the Skowkale First Nation and the Yakweakwioose First Nation, was rejected by the British Columbia Supreme Court. Canada Lands Co. claimed that Tzeachan’s action was barred by res judicata. Alternatively, Canada Lands Co. asked that the claim be struck because it disclosed no reasonable claim or was an abuse of process.
The judge denied the application. Here’s the decision.
B.C. Supreme Court Keeps Aboriginal Title and Aboriginal Rights Severed
In B.C. (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, the province sought direction, for an upcoming (November) trial, on the issue of the band mixing aboriginal title and aboriginal right, which had been severed into two different phases of the trial.
B.C. argued that Okanagan First Nation was incorrectly introducing the title issue during the rights phase, but Okanagan disagreed, stating that the question of the Crown’s burden of proof to establish that the timber was Crown timber has always been an issue in the case, and in the severed trial, and that their recent (May) notice of a constitutional question simply clarifies that position.
The judge found in favor of the province, holding that the notice of constitutional question will be deferred to the second phase.
Trashy Decision For B.C. — Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council v. British Columbia
A recent appeal by the Nlaka’pamux Nation (in the B.C. Court of Appeal) was upheld because it was determined that British Columba did not adequately meet its duty to consult requirements. The appeal was in regard to the extension of a landfill over land which the First Nation claimed Aboriginal rights and title.
Here’s the decision . Below is an excerpt.
“Indigenous Title” vs. “Aboriginal Title” – Louison v. Ochapowace Indian Band #71
In Louison v. Ochapowace Indian Band #71 , William Louison tried to sue the Ochapowace Indian Band #71, its corporation (312050 Saskatchewan Ltd.) and the province of Saskatchewan – not only in his personal capacity but also “in a representative capacity on behalf of all Indigenous Peoples of Saskatchewan.”
Mr. Louison was living on a certain tract of land which the Ochapowace Band held the only legally recognizable right to and which it was attempting to remove him from. Louison claimed that he was a “North American Indigenous Person” and that the subject lands were settled by his ancestors. He also claimed that the land in question was traditional “Indigenous Peoples lands” and that he had the right to use the land by way of Indigenous Title. Therefore, he refused to give up possession of the land.
Shinnecock Loses Rule 59 Motion; Permanent Injunction Granted on IGRA Claim
New York successfully defended a judgment in its favor from last November (noted here) from a Rule 59 motion to modify the judgment. Also, the district court issued a permanent injunction against the Shinnecock Indian Nation, preventing them from opening a gaming operation under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Here are the materials:
First Nations Aboriginal Title Decision in B.C.
You can view the opinion here.
From the CBC:
B.C. First Nations win historic land victory
In a historic legal victory for First Nations in British Columbia, the B.C. Supreme Court has ruled aboriginal people have proven title to 2,000 square kilometres of land in the Chilcotin district.
The 485-page ruling issued Wednesday morning had its roots in a case that began in 1990 with a dispute over trapping rights and forestry on Crown land.
In 2002, Chief Roger William, representing the Tsilhqot’in First Nations, went to court to prove aboriginal title to 4,400 square kilometres in the Chilko Lake area in the province’s interior.
The marathon trial with nearly 30 lawyers sat for 339 days over five years.
Wednesday’s landmark ruling declared the six nations of the Tsilhqot’in First Nations have proven title to about 2,000 square kilometres of that land — and they have rights to harvest on the rest of the territory.
“The Province has no jurisdiction to extinguish aboriginal title,” Judge David Vickers wrote in the executive summary.
“Tsilhqot’in people have an aboriginal right to trade in skins and pelts as a means of securing a moderate livelihood. These rights have been continuous since pre-contact time, which the court determines was 1793.
“Land use planning and forestry activities have unjustifiably infringed Tsilhqot’in aboriginal title and Tsilhqot’in aboriginal rights.”
The lawyer for the First Nations, Jack Woodward, said only a legal technicality prevented the court from making an outright declaration that the First Nation has title.
“The court has held that the Tsilhqot’in have proven that they own it and that the Crown has no defence to that proof,” Woodward said.
“So who are the rightful owners? Obviously the aboriginal peoples are the rightful owners.”
Woodward said the 3,000 Tsilhqot’in people wish to pursue their traditional lifestyle, and that they don’t wish to halt all resource industries such as logging and mining, but that they do want them pursued in a manner that’s more sensitive to the environment.
The legal precedent set by the decision — which includes a ruling that the provincial Forests Act will no longer apply to the lands — has significant implications for resource industries in B.C., Woodward said.
In the executive summary, the judge stated: “Aboriginal title land is not ‘Crown land’ as defined by provincial forestry legislation. The provincial Forest Act does not apply to aboriginal title land.”
The province has been instructed by the court to manage the territory to preserve the resources necessary for the First Nations to exercise their rights.
Shinnecock Case Materials
Here is a link to the opinion. Gaming Court Decision (October 31, 2007):
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
Here is the tribe’s Shinnecock Trial Brief
and here is the tribe’s proposed findings of fact: Shinnecock Proposed Findings of Fact
Shinnecock Nation Loses Gaming Case
From Indianz: “Citing the “disruptive nature” of the Shinnecock Nation’s attempts to assert sovereignty, a federal judge on Tuesday blocked the New York tribe from opening a gaming facility on ancestral land. The tribe has lived on Long Island for thousands of years. Its reservation, located in the heart of the wealthy enclave known as the Hamptons, is recognized by the state as sovereign land. But in a 129-page ruling, Judge Joseph F. Bianco said a disputed parcel outside the eservation is not sovereign territory. Though the tribe owns the “Westwoods” land in fee, it lost aboriginal title hundreds of years ago, the lengthy decision stated. Bianco, a Bush appointee, said “the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated in a plain and unambiguous manner that aboriginal title held by the Westwoods land was extinguished in the 17th century.” Yet even if aboriginal title still existed, Bianco said the tribe can’t use the site for gaming due to the “highly disruptive consequences” of the proposed 61,000-square-foot casino. Nearly 20 pages of the opinion were dedicated to the impacts of gaming on the environment, traffic, health and safety. To back up his reasoning, Bianco cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that has hurt several tribes as they pursue their land and sovereignty claims in New York. The Sherrill case required the Oneida Nation to go through the land-into-trust process before asserting sovereignty over properties within its ancestral reservation. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has since used the decision to throw out a land claim by the Cayuga Nation and the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe. In his ruling, Bianco said Sherrill has “dramatically altered the legal landscape” of tribal claims. “The 2005 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Sherrill set forth the legal framework under which a court must examine equitable doctrines in the context of an attempt by an Indian tribe to re-assert sovereignty over a parcel of land,” Bianco wrote.”
This case raised very narrow issues, but some of the issues have resonance throughout Indian Country. First, the court held that there is no common law right for Indian tribes to operating gaming facilities outside of the framework established by IGRA. Second, implicitly, the court held that Indian tribes cannot operate gaming facilities on fee land off the reservation. These are not terribly important questions, except to tribes with no usable land and to non-recognized or state-recognized tribes.
The opinions are here:
Gaming Court Decision (October 31, 2007):
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
Land Claim Court Decision:
Shinnecock Nation v. New York (November 28, 2006)
Federal Recognition Court Decision:
New York v. Shinnecock Nation (November 7, 2005)
Turtle Talk 