Wisconsin Tribes Sue Wisconsin over Taxation of Indian Lands

Here are the materials in Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Walker (W.D. Wis.):

2018.11.30 – Docket 01 – Complaint

2018.11.30 – Docket 1-1 – Civil Cover Sheet

2018.11.30 – Docket 1-2 – Exhibit Index

2018.11.30 – Docket 1-3 – Exhibit A – Treaty with Chippewa

2018.11.30 – Docket 1-4 – Exhibit B – Sample Red Cliff Patent

New Scholarship on Indian Treaty Rights and Fossil-Fuel Exports Projects in the Pacific Northwest

Michael C. Blumm & Jeffrey Litwak have posted “Democratizing Treaty Fishing Rights: Denying Fossil-Fuel Exports Projects in the Pacific Northwest,” forthcoming in the Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Indian treaty fishing rights scored an important judicial victory recently when an equally divided U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the so-called “culverts case,” which decided that the Stevens Treaties of the 1850s give the tribes a right to protect salmon migration obstructed by barrier road culverts. The implications of that decision on other habitat damaging activities have yet to be ascertained, but even prior to the resolution of the culverts case there were significant indications that federal, state, and local administrative agencies were acting to protect treaty fishing rights from the adverse effects of large fossil-fuel export projects proposed throughout the Pacific Northwest. After briefly explaining the culverts decision, this article examines five recent examples of agencies denying permits for fossil-fuel developments at least in part of treaty rights grounds. We draw some lessons from these examples concerning the importance of tribal participation in administrative processes and explore some knotty evidentiary issues that tribal efforts to protect their historic fishing sites may entail. We conclude that safeguarding their treaty rights in the 21st century will require tribes to be as vigilant about the administrative process as they have been about seeking judicial protection.

New Scholarship by Jeanette Wolfley on Indian Tribes and the Energy Industry

Jeanette Wolfley has published “Embracing Engagement: The Challenges and Opportunities for the Energy Industry and Tribal Nations on Projects Affecting Tribal Rights and Off-Reservation Lands” in the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law.

 

Herrera v. Wyoming SCOTUS Background Materials

Here are the merit stage briefs:

Petitioner

Petitioner’s Brief

17-532 tsac Indian Law Professors

Crow Tribe Amicus Brief

Eastern Shoshone Amicus Brief

Natural Resources Law Professors Brief

NCAI Brief

PACIFIC AND INLAND NORTHWEST TREATY TRIBES Brief

Public Health Scholars Brief

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Brief

Southern Ute Indian Tribe and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

US Merits Brief

Petitioner’s Reply Brief

Respondent

Respondents Brief

Brief amici curiae of Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Amicus Brief of Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

States Amicus Brief Supporting Respondent

Amicus brief of Safari Club International

Amici Curiae Brief of Wyoming Stock Growers Association

Here are the cert stage briefs:

2017-10-05 Herrera Cert Petition

17-532 Amici Brief Indian Law Professors

Crow Tribe Brief

Scholars Brief

Wyoming opposition to Herrera petition

Cert Stage Reply

17-532 Herrera (ac pet) [US invitation brief]

respondent supplemental brief

petitioner supplemental brief

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Skokomish v. Forsman

Here is the unpublished opinion:

17-35336 docket 47_6.18.2018

Briefs here.

Culverts Case Oral Argument Transcript

Here.

Culverts case background materials here.

Monte Mills on the Culverts Case

Here is “Supreme Court case tests weight of old Native American treaties in 21st century,” from The Conversation.

Background materials on the culverts case are here.

United States Tax Court Holds Income Earned from Seneca Lands is Taxable

Here is the opinion in Perkins v. Commissioner:

Opinion

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Lummi over Klallam Tribes in U&A Litigation

Here is the opinion in Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe v. Lummi Nation.

From the syllabus:

The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Lower Elwha Klallam Indian Tribe, and held that the disputed waters west of Whidbey Island, Washington were included in the Lummi Nation’s right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations (“U & A”) under the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliot.

In United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), Judge Boldt developed a framework for determining U & As for Indian signatories to the Treaty. In Finding of Fact 46, Judge Boldt stated that the U & A for the Lummi Indians “included the marine areas of Northern Puget Sound from the Fraser River south to the present
environs of Seattle.” 

To determine whether the waters west of Whidbey Island were included in the Lummi’s U & A, the panel followed a two-step procedure. At step one, the panel held that Fact 46 was ambiguous because it did not clearly include or exclude the disputed waters. At step two, the panel examined the record before Judge Boldt to clarify his intent, and concluded that the district court erred in excluding the disputed waters
from the Lummi’s U & A. The panel held that the district court improperly imposed a heightened standard in holding that logic or linguistics needed to “compel the conclusion” that contested waters be included in a U & A.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Remands Makah v. Quileute/Quinault Ocean U&A Dispute

Here is the opinion in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe.

 Briefs are here.