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.):

546 DCT Order

Related briefs:

507 US Brief

510 Dakota Access Brief

527 Tribal Plaintiffs Brief

531 Congressional Amicus Brief

532 Environmental Amicus Brief

533 Tribal Amicus Brief

536 US Reply

539 Dakota Access Reply

Prior post 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.):

2020-03-25-dkt-496-memorandum-opinion-re-495-order-on-motions-for-summary-judgment.-signed-by-judge-james-e.-boasberg-on-3252020.pdf

More details later.

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

436-1 Cheyenne River Motion for Summary Judgment

439 NCAI Amicus Brief

Federal Court Orders Partial Supplementation to Dakota Access Pipeline Administrative Record

Here is the order in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

SRST v USACOE

Reviews of Nick Estes’ “Our History Is the Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance”

NPR

The Intercept

HNN

The book webpage from Verso is here.