Here is the complaint in Caddo Nation of Oklahoma v. Witchita and Affiliated Tribes (W.D. Okla.):
American Indian sacred sites
La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee v. DOI Cert Stage Briefs
Winnemem Wintu Tribe Prevails against Feds on Protecting Coonrod Flats, Loses on Other Sacred Sites Claims
Here are the materials in Winnemem Wintu Tribe v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.), also known as Franco v. USFS:
131-1 USFS Motion for Summary J
133-1 Winnemem Wintu Tribe Opposition
134 Winnemem Wintu Tribe Motion to Strike
Angela Riley & Kristen Carpenter on a Theory of Indian Cultural Appropriation
Angela Riley and Kristen Carpenter have posted “Owning Red: A Theory of Indian (Cultural) Appropriation,” forthcoming in the Texas Law Review, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
In a number of recent controversies, from sports teams’ use of Indian mascots to the federal government’s desecration of sacred sites, American Indians have lodged charges of “cultural appropriation” or the unauthorized use by members of one group the cultural expressions and resources of another. While these and other incidents are currently in the headlines, American Indians often experience these claims within an historical and continuing experience of dispossession. For hundreds of years, the U.S. legal system has sanctioned the taking and destruction of Indian lands and artifacts, bodies and religions, identities and beliefs, all toward the project of conquest and colonization. Indian resources have been devalued by the law and made available for non-Indians to use of their own purposes. Seeking redresses for the losses caused by these actions, tribes have brought claims under a variety of laws, from trademark and copyright, to the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment, and some have been more successful than others. As a matter of property law, courts have compensated – albeit incompletely – the taking of certain Indian lands and has also come to recognize tribal interests in human remains, gravesites, and associated artifacts. When it comes to intangible property, however, the situation is more complicated. It is difficult for legal decision-makers and scholars alike to understand why Indian tribes should be able to regulate the use of Indian names, symbols, and expressions. Indeed, non-Indians often claim interests, sounding in free speech and the public domain, in the very same resources. To advance understanding of this contested area of law, this Article situates intangible cultural property claims in a larger history of the legal dispossession of Indian property – a phenomenon we call “Indian appropriation.” It then evaluates these claims vis à vis prevailing legal doctrine, and offers a normative view of solutions, both legal and extralegal.
Highly, highly recommended! I had a chance to review a draft of this paper and Profs. Riley and Carpenter are changing the way Indian law scholars and property law scholars think about cultural property. A terrific contribution.
Yakama/Umatilla Prevail against Fish and Wildlife Service in Sacred Sites Question
Here are the materials in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Fish and Wildlife Service (E.D. Wash.):
49 Umatilla Motion for Summary J
50 Yakama Motion for Summary J
An excerpt:
Although the NHPA and its accompanying regulations do not mandate a particular substantive outcome, its procedural requirements are obligatory. This Court would be derelict in its duties if it failed to enforce the minimal procedural protections guaranteed the Tribes. True, the Service, after reopening consultation with the parties, may reasonably conclude that the expanded program of wildflower tours will have no adverse effect on the Lalíik TCP. But this hypothetical cannot influence the Court’s current analysis. Instead, the relevant focus is whether the Service complied with the relevant statute and regulations: did the Service “stop, look, listen,” and carefully consider tribal input before moving ahead with the greatly expanded undertaking? Or, instead, did the Service stop, look at past tribal consultations on similar proposals, and inappropriately assume that each Tribe would merely voice its blanket opposition rather than providing additional insight to or suggested mitigation measures for the expanded undertaking? Because this Court concludes the latter occurred here, the only remedy is to set aside the Agency’s no adverse effect finding on the updated proposal and order the Service to reengage in the consultation process before conducting any additional wildflower tours within the Lalíik TCP, if it still chooses to pursue the undertaking.
Call for Subject Matter Experts Participation: Training Development Assistance to Protect Indian Sacred Sites
Call for Subject Matter Experts Participation: Training Development Assistance to Protect Indian Sacred Sites
November 2014
Federal land managing agencies hold in public trust a great diversity of landscapes and sites, including many culturally important sites held sacred by Indian tribes. Recognizing a common goal and obligation to consider the impacts of agency actions on historic properties of traditional cultural and religious importance to tribes, on December 5, 2012, the Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Energy, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to improve the protection of and Indian access to sacred sites through interagency coordination and collaboration.
As part of this effort, we are soliciting volunteer Subject Matter Experts from the federal government, academia, tribes and tribal NGOs to assist in the development of a training module. This training would improve knowledge among federal employees on the legal, regulatory and policy requirements of federal agencies pertaining to management of federal lands with tribal sacred sites, places and landscapes.
We plan to identify potential Subject Matter Experts in January 2015 and work creating the training will begin immediately. The completed product will be presented at the 2015 White House Tribal Nations Conference later in the year.
If you have experience working with issues or knowledge related to the identification, protection and/or management of Indian sacred sites or places and would like more information, or to be considered to serve as a volunteer Subject Matter Expert, please submit your name, contact information, and federal or state agency, tribal or professional affiliation to:
http://www.denix.osd.mil/na/TribalConsultation.cfm
(***At the above address, please click “Contact Native American Affairs” from the menu on the left)
Inquiries should be submitted no later than December 31, 2014
Federal Government Liable for Ruination of Fort Yuma Indian Reservation Sacred Site
Here are the orders in Quechan Tribe v. United States (S.D. Cal.):
282 Quechan Memorandum of Facts and Law
283 US Memorandum of Facts and Law
Ninth Circuit Denies Motion to Publish Opinion in Te-Moak v. Interior
Federal Inter-Agency Progress Report on Collaborating to Protect Sacred Sites
Here is “Progress Report on Implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding
Regarding Interagency Coordination and Collaboration for the Protection of Indian Sacred Sites,” released by the Departments of Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Energy, and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:
News Coverage of Paving Over of Sacred Site with Tribal Approval
Here.
An excerpt:
The American Indian leaders ultimately decided how the findings would be handled, and they defended their decision to remove and rebury the human remains and burial artifacts.
“The philosophy of the tribe in general is that we would like to protect our cultural resources and leave them as is,” said Nick Tipon, a longtime member of the Sacred Sites Protection Committee of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. “The notion that these cultural artifacts belong to the public is a colonial view.”
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.