Here are the materials in the consolidated cases known as Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):
Dakota Access Pipeline
New Scholarship on DAPL and Tribal Jurisdiction
Andrew Rome has published “Black Snake on the Periphery: The Dakota Access Pipeline and Tribal Jurisdictional Sovereignty” in the North Dakota Law Review.
Court Finds Tribes’ Interim Conditions Reasonable and Appropriate
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):
Link: Previous posts, other documents related to Dakota Access Pipeline
The Tribes’ Reply in Support of Remand Conditions and Proposed Order
Here are the documents 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):
Other materials posted here.
Eighth Circuit Rejects Effort to Enjoin Police Use of Dangerous Weapons at Standing Rock
Here is the unpublished opinion in Dundon v. Kirchmeier.
Briefs:
North Dakota SCT Declines to Terminate the Special Provision of Legal Services Order
Here is the court’s order in In the Matter of a Petition to Terminate the Special Provision of Legal Services by Qualified Attorneys From Outside North Dakota:
20160436_op_Petition to Terminate Special Provision of Legal Services
Prior post here.
Environmental Assessment Not Vacated on Remand in Dakota Access
Here are the documents 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):
Other materials posted here.
Excerpt:
In light of the “serious possibility” that the Corps will be able to substantiate its prior conclusions, the Court finds that vacatur is not the appropriate remedy in this case. That determination does not, however, excuse Defendants from giving serious consideration to the errors identified in this Court’s prior Opinion. Compliance with NEPA cannot be reduced to a bureaucratic formality, and the Court expects the Corps not to treat remand as an exercise in filling out the proper paperwork post hoc. After the agency’s further work on remand, the parties may well disagree over the sufficiency of its conclusion. If and when such a dispute arises, they will again have the opportunity to address whether Defendants have in fact fulfilled their statutory obligations.
Standing Rock/NoDAPL Motion to File Amicus in Support of Dakota Access and ACOE Brief Regarding Remedy
Here are the briefs(PDF) 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):
- 258- United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Brief Regarding Remedy
- 259- Motion of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, and the National Association of Manufacturers for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Dakota Access, LLC’s Brief on Vacatur
Request from WPLC Regarding N.D. Petition to Rescind Special Provision
Dear Law School faculty:
I am an attorney associated with the Water Protectors Legal Collective (WPLC), the legal assistance project which has been assisting the Standing Rock Tribe and its supporters protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota. I’m writing together with Elana Gold, a law graduate working with WPLC, to ask you to consider signing the statement below which will be transmitted to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
In January, the North Dakota Supreme Court granted Special Provisions allowing qualified attorneys from outside North Dakota who are not members of the North Dakota bar to provide pro hac vice legal services in North Dakota representing defendants charged as a result of protest activities connected to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Just days ago the Presiding District Judge of the South Central Judicial District where DAPL cases are pending, Hon. Gail Hagerty, petitioned the Supreme Court of North Dakota to terminate the Special Provisions the Supreme Court ordered on January 18, 2017 allowing out of state attorneys to represent protesters supporting the Water Protectors. The Supreme Court initially adopted the provisions to ensure the constitutional rights of these defendants because there is limited access to legal resources in North Dakota. Revoking this provision would be a blow to the rights of defendants. (Click here to see a copy of the Petition to Terminate the Special Provision.)
The North Dakota Supreme Court is allowing comment on the proposal until Monday October 2nd at 4 p.m. Over 175 law school faculty from around the United States signed a comment in December 2016 in support of granting the original Special Provisions. WPLC asks you to now consider signing a comment in opposition to the Petition of Judge Hagerty and the Judges of the South Central Judicial District to terminate the Special Provision allowing out-of-state attorneys to represent protesters. If you are willing to sign the statement below, please send your name, faculty title, and the name of your institution to Elana Gold at elanagoldlaw@protonmail.com on or before Monday October 2nd at Noon Central Daylight time (1pm Eastern, 10am Pacific). Please share this request with colleagues at your school. Thank you for your support.
Respectfully,
Terry Janis
Executive Director
Water Protector Legal Collective
To: Hon. Justices of the Supreme Court of North Dakota
c/o Penny L. Miller, Esq., Clerk of the Supreme Court
Judicial Wing, First Fl.
600 E. Boulevard Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58505-0530
Re: In the Matter of a Petition dated September 11, 2017
to Terminate the Court’s Special Provision Adopted
January 18, 2017 to Allow Qualified Attorneys Not Licensed in
North Dakota to Provide Legal Services to Defendants
Charged As a Result of Protest Activities connected to
The Dakota Access Pipeline
We are law school faculty from throughout the United States. We urge the North Dakota Supreme Court to continue to allow qualified attorneys admitted in other jurisdictions to practice temporarily in North Dakota in order to protect the constitutional rights of those arrested in connection with their opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. To this end, we oppose the Petition to Terminate the Special Provision of Legal Services by Qualified Attorneys from Outside North Dakota.
The circumstances that created the initial need for this provision remain critical. Over 800 arrests were made during the Water Protector camps at Standing Rock. As of September 11, 2017 some 150 defendants remained unrepresented and over half of the 800 cases are still unresolved. As these cases rapidly move to trial, it is evident that the number of criminal defense attorneys licensed in North Dakota and available to represent these defendants is inadequate. It would be an affront to fundamental fairness and due process to allow some Water Protectors access to pro hac vice attorneys while denying it to the second half of defendants.
We are concerned that under these circumstances the rights guaranteed the defendants by the state and federal constitutions cannot be upheld. The right of both indigent and non-indigent defendants to adequate and effective counsel undergirds the guarantees of a fair and speedy trial, due process, and equal protection that constitute the cornerstones of the rule of law. The Court can protect these foundational principles and preclude the time and expense of years of subsequent litigation should these defendants be denied their constitutional rights by denying this proposed Petition.
For these reasons we ask the Court to deny the Petition to Revoke dated September 11, 2017 and urge the Court to ensure that all persons arrested and charged in North Dakota have access to adequate and effective legal representation.
Respectfully,
[NAMES OF LAW FACULTY]
ATL: State Legislatures Trying to Use Dakota Access Pipeline Protests as Excuse for Statutory Limits on Progressive or Anti-Fascist Speech
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.