Here is the unpublished opinion in Karuk Tribe v. Stelle.
Briefs are here.
The documents outline the extensive process the Forest Service employees should have gone through before doing the work but didn’t.
For instance, the ranger who approved the project told another employee they didn’t’ have to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act because they did not own the land.
Download outreach notice here.
Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams (D. Ariz.):
This case arises out of the proposed renewal of operations at the Canyon Mine in Northern Arizona. The Canyon Mine is a breccia pipe uranium mine located six miles south of Grand Canyon National Park, in the Kaibab National Forest, and four miles north of Red Butte, a culturally and religiously significant site for the Havasupai and other tribes.
From the opening paragraph of the opinion, per Bybee, J.:
In this case we are presented with a question of first impression: Who bears the burden of proof when a defendant is charged with occupation of Forest Service land in violation of 36 C.F.R. §§ 261.10(b) and (k)? Must the prosecution prove that the defendant does not have individual aboriginal title, or is the claim an affirmative defense? We hold that the occupant claiming individual aboriginal title bears the burden of demonstrating such title as an affirmative defense. Applying that standard, we conclude that the defendant in this case failed to meet this burden, and we affirm the judgment of the district court upholding the defendant’s convictions.
Here are the materials: