From the Intercept, here.
Dakota Access Pipeline
D.C. Circuit Materials in Standing Rock v. Army Corps
Here are the briefs in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers:
Members of Congress Amicus Brief
States Against DAPL Amicus Brief
States Supporting DAPL Amicus Brief
Oral argument audio here.
Lower court materials here.
Federal Court Dismisses Most Claims by Water Protectors against State and County over NoDAPL Protests
Here are the materials in Thunderhawk v. County of Morton (D.N.D.):
38 TigerSwan Answer + Counterclaim
45-1 Motion to Dismiss TigerSwan Counterclaim
56 TigerSwam Answer + 2d Counterclaim
67-1 Motion to Dismiss TigerSwan 2d Counterclaim
71 County Reply in Support of 49
76 State Reply in Support of 52
85 TigerSwan Reply in Support of 82
NPR: “After Long-Sought Wins For Native Americans, What’s Next?”
Here.
Federal Court Invalidates Dakota Access Pipeline Permits
Here is the order in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):
Related briefs:
531 Congressional Amicus Brief
532 Environmental Amicus Brief
Prior post here.
NYTs Coverage of Standing Rock Decision
Here is “Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Wins a Victory in Dakota Access Pipeline Case.“
The opinion is here.
Tribes Prevail in Standing Rock Suit, Court Orders Army Corps Prepare EIS on Dakota Access Pipeline
Here is the order in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):
More details later.
Dakota Access Pipeline Case to be Argued Today in D.C.
Danielle Delaney on Environmental Law, Indigenous Identity, and #NoDAPL
Danielle Delaney has published “Under Coyote’s Mask: Environmental Law, Indigenous Identity, and #NoDAPL” in the Michigan Journal of Race & Law.
The abstract:
This Article studies the relationship between the three main lawsuits filed by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Yankton Sioux Tribe against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DaPL) and the mass protests launched from the Sacred Stone and Oceti Sakowin protest camps. The use of environmental law as the primary legal mechanism to challenge the construction of the pipeline distorted the indigenous demand for justice as U.S. federal law is incapable of seeing the full depth of the indigenous worldview supporting their challenge. Indigenous activists constantly re-centered the direct actions and protests within indigenous culture to remind non-indigenous activists and the wider media audience that the protests were an indigenous protest, rather than a purely environmental protest, a distinction that was obscured as the litigation progressed. The NoDAPL protests, the litigation to prevent the completion and later operation of the pipeline, and the social movement that the protests engendered, were an explosive expression of indigenous resistance—resistance to systems that silence and ignore indigenous voices while attempting to extract resources from their lands and communities. As a case study, the protests demonstrate how the use of litigation, while often critical to achieving the goals of political protest, distorts the expression of politics not already recognized within the legal discourse.
Tribal Motions for Summary Judgment in Standing Rock v. Army Corps [Dakota Access Pipeline]
Here are the new materials in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):
418 DCT Order on Administrative Record
433-2 Standing Rock Motion for Summary Judgment
434-2 Oglala Motion for Summary Judgment
435-1 Yankton Motion for Summary Judgment