Danielle Delaney has published “Under Coyote’s Mask: Environmental Law, Indigenous Identity, and #NoDAPL” in the Michigan Journal of Race & Law.
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.
Here is the order in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):
SRST v USACOE
The book webpage from Verso is here.
Amanda M. Marincic has published “The National Historic Preservation Act: An Inadequate Attempt to Protect the Cultural and Religious Sites of Native Nations” in the Iowa Law Review.
Beginning in 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe engaged in a highly-publicized, year-long legal battle with Energy Transfer Partners regarding the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (“DAPL”). The Tribe initially argued that the DAPL’s construction would destroy ancient burial sites and potentially poison their only source of drinking water, the Missouri River. The Tribe also argued that the agency involved in the project, the Army Corps of Engineers, did not fulfill the obligations required by the NHPA. For a while, the fate of the DAPL was uncertain, with permits for construction being denied and then granted. After the Army Corps of Engineers granted the permit pursuant to President Trump’s memorandum, construction on the DAPL was completed. After several failed attempts by the Standing Rock Sioux to halt operation of the DAPL, a federal district judge ruled in June 2017 that the environmental impact studies done on the DAPL were inadequate. While this ruling is a small victory for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the NHPA was useless in protecting its cultural sites from significant damage.
Here are the materials in the consolidated cases known as Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):
292 Yankton Sioux Tribe Motion for Summary J
317-1 Army Corps Response
319 Dakota Access Response
341 DCT Order
Here is the opinion in the matter of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe et al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al (D.D.C. 16-cv-01534):
Doc. 304 – Memorandum Opinion
Link: Previous posts, other documents related to Dakota Access Pipeline