Te-Moak Tribe of Shoshone Indians v. DOI

Briefs in Te-Moak Tribe et al v. Interior

Kate Fort5 Comments

Appellants’ Brief

Appellants, the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (“Te-Moak Tribe”), the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (“Timbisha Tribe”), the Western Shoshone Defense Project (“WSDP”), and Great Basin Resource Watch (“GBRW”)(collectively, “the Tribes”) challenge the federal Bureau of Land Management (“BLM’s”) approvals of Barrick Cortez Inc.’s (“Barrick”) Cortez Hills Project (“Project”), a large open pit, cyanide-leach gold mine on Mt. Tenabo, a mountain sacred to many Western Shoshone Indians and in particular to the Te- Moak Tribe and Timbisha Tribe and their members. In this appeal, the Tribes challenge the decision of the district court to deny, in whole or in part, the Tribes’ Motions for Summary Judgment (“SJ Motions”), which sought to overturn the BLM’s actions.

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the action arose under the laws of the United States including: the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-706, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., and their implementing regulations.

American Indian Law Professors Amicus Brief

Coverage of the case’s previous trip to the 9th Circuit here.

Te-Moak Shoshone Tribe Forces Reconsideration of BLM Approval of Cortez Gold Mines

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Te-Moak Tribe of Shoshone Indians v. DOI.

An excerpt:

Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone of Nevada, a federally-recognized Indian tribe (“the Tribe”), the Western Shoshone Defense Project (“WSDP”), and Great Basin Mine Watch (“GBMW”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment, and the grant of summary judgment to the Department of the Interior (“DOI”), the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), several officers of the BLM, and intervenor Cortez Gold Mines, Inc. (“Cortez”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs contend that the BLM’s approval of Cortez’s amendment to a plan of operations for an existing mineral exploration project in Nevada violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court with respect to Plaintiffs’ NHPA and FLPMA claims, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings with respect to one of their NEPA claims.