Eighth Circuit Restores Civil Rights Suit Brought by Water Protector Shot in Eye by North Dakota Cops [can I say pigs here? nah, I’m a pescaterian, BUT when even the Cato Institute wants you to lose maybe it’s right]

Here is the opinion in Mitchell v. Kirchmeier.

Diné Water Protector, Marcus Mitchell, in January 2017 at Standing Rock, ND. Photo: Hal Myers

Briefs:

Berkeley News: “Why were Trump loyalists allowed to storm the Capitol?”

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.

Federal Court Dismisses Most Claims by Water Protectors against State and County over NoDAPL Protests

Here are the materials in Thunderhawk v. County of Morton (D.N.D.):

38 TigerSwan Answer + Counterclaim

44 Amended Complaint

45-1 Motion to Dismiss TigerSwan Counterclaim

49 County Motion to Dismiss

52 State Motion to Dismiss

56 TigerSwam Answer + 2d Counterclaim

57 TigerSwan Opposition to 45

58 Reply in Support of 45

61 Response to County MTD

62 Response to State MTD

67-1 Motion to Dismiss TigerSwan 2d Counterclaim

71 County Reply in Support of 49

73 TigerSwan Opposition to 67

76 State Reply in Support of 52

82 TigerSwan MSJ

84 Response to TigerSwan MSJ

85 TigerSwan Reply in Support of 82

87 DCT Order Dismissing TigerSwan Counterclaim

88 DCT Order

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

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.

Federal Court Dismisses Dakota Access Pipeline-Related RICO Suit Brought by Pipeline Co. against Greenpeace and Individual Indians

Here are the materials in Energy Transfer Equity LP v. Greenpeace International (D.N.D.):

95 Amended Complaint

102 Greenpeace Fund MTD

103-1 Greenpeace Intl MTD

111 Response

121 Two Bulls MTD

125 Response

126 Two Bulls Reply

130 Montoya MTD

131 Response

135 DCT Order