Here is the opinion in Mitchell v. Kirchmeier.
![](https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/img_8725.jpg?w=648)
Briefs:
Here is the opinion in Mitchell v. Kirchmeier.
Briefs:
Here is the brief in Mitchell v. Kirchmeier (8th Cir.):
Featuring a former student of mine and current tribal cultural resources policy fellow at Berkeley Law, Nazune Menka, here.
An excerpt:
In 2016 and 2017, we saw what the police response was to the Dakota Access Pipeline and water protectors. The use of water cannons and rubber bullets on peaceful people at the Water Protector Camp was reminiscent of the police treatment of activists during the civil rights movement in the South.
This summer, we saw what the police response was to the Black Lives Matter movement. The protests that were happening were largely calm. They were respectful, peaceful protests. People came in from out of town to counterprotest, and that’s where the clashing and violence came from. I don’t think that any of the violence this summer was at the behest of the Black Lives Matter movement. I think quite the opposite — these events were targeted to skew the optics in the media to basically demonize people of color even further. Thinking about this in contrast to the police response at the Capitol is heartbreaking to me.
From the Intercept, here.
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
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.
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
Here are the materials in Energy Transfer Equity LP v. Greenpeace International (D.N.D.):
Here is the opinion in State v. Bearruner.
You must be logged in to post a comment.