Navajo Nation

Here is the decision, In re Peabody Western Coal Division, from the Environmental Appeals Board

Diné CARE National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA Complaint: Clean Air Act Suit regarding Navajo Coal

March 21, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint, filed in D.C.:

An excerpt:

1. The federal Clean Air Act requires the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“Administrator” or “EPA”) to promulgate modern pollution control limits at the massive Navajo Generating Station (“NGS”) and Four Corners Power Plant (“Four Corners”), located on Navajo tribal lands in Arizona and New Mexico, to remedy unhealthful, scenery-impairing air pollution in protected national parks and wilderness areas in the American Southwest. Because EPA has failed to promulgate such pollution control limits without unreasonable delay, Plaintiffs bring this action to secure an order from the court that directs EPA to issue haze-reducing pollution control limits at NGS and Four Corners forthwith.

2. In particular, this Clean Air Act Section 304(a) citizen suit, 42 U.S.C. §7604(a), seeks an order compelling EPA to perform its nondiscretionary duties by date or dates certain to promulgate federal implementation plans (“FIPs”) establishing Best Available Retrofit Technology (“BART”) for NGS and Four Corners. EPA’s failure to perform these duties within a reasonable time has deprived Plaintiffs’ members of health, welfare, and procedural protections provided by the Clean Air Act.

Federal Court Rejects Navajo Motion to Dismiss EEOC v. Peabody Coal

March 14, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is that opinion:

DCT Order Denying Navajo Motion to Dismiss

This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit. It involves the validity of the Navajo Preference in Employment statute under Title VII.

“Navajo Cops” Premieres Monday, March 12th on National Geographic Channel

March 11, 2012March 11, 2012Adrea Korthase

Story in the Denver Post here.

Story in Farmington Daily Times (referenced in the Denver Post story) here.

Thanks to E.L. and V.N.

Federal Court Order re: Restitution for Killing of Navajo Members

February 24, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Harwood (D. N.M.):

DCT Sentencing Order in Harwood

In short, the court disallowed restitution for the costs of Navajo healing ceremonies because they were not “funeral or related services” under the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982.

Extra-Territorial Application of Tribal Criminal Law

February 22, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

An interesting question, especially given 17 NAVAJO CODE § 203, which reads:

The Navajo Nation Courts shall have jurisdiction over any person who commits an offense by his or her own conduct if the conduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurs within the territorial jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation Courts as defined in 7 N.N.C. § 254, or such other dependent Indian communities as may hereafter be determined to be under the jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation and the Courts of the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation Courts shall also have jurisdiction over any member of the Navajo Nation who commits an offense against any other member of the Navajo Nation wherever the conduct which constitutes the offense occurs.

For more detail on the extra-territorial application of federal criminal law as a possible analog, see this report from the Congressional Research Service.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Save the Peaks’ Effort to Stop the Arizona Snowbowl, Labels Effort a “Gross Abuse of the Judicial Process”

February 9, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is today’s opinion in Save the Peaks v. United States Forest Service, where the court opens with:

This case represents a gross abuse of the judicial process. Just when Defendants-Appellees United States Forest Service and Joseph P. Stringer (USFS), and Intervenor-Defendant Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership (ASRLP) had successfully defended an agency decision to allow snowmaking at a ski resort on federal land all the way to the United States Supreme Court, “new” plaintiffs appeared.

Here are the briefs:

Save the Peaks Opening Brief

Federal Response Brief

Arizona Snowbowl Response Brief

Save the Peaks Reply Brief

Oral argument audio here.

Lower court decision here.