Here is today’s opinion in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger.
Briefs here.
Lower court materials here.
Here is today’s opinion in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger.
Briefs here.
Lower court materials here.
We posted the original story here. Here‘s the response:
My Home
By Willow PingreeThe smell of fry bread and burgers, the laughter of friends and family reminiscing about good old times, the sound of music and the sight of people dressed in regalia, dancing inside an arbor while spectators watch from bleachers around the big arena. You’d find all of this at the Annual Eastern Shoshone Indian Days, or the Northern Arapaho Celebration powwow on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming.
As you walk around the outside of the dance arbor, you’d see crowds of people walking around you, sitting against wooden posts built along the outer rim of the powwow arbor: people sitting around a big circular drum, beating on it together in one rhythm and singing together in harmony. As the singers continue blasting their voices to the sky, the dancers slide and sway to the heartbeat of the people, the powerful sound of the drum. Surrounding them, the rolling hills, the sage brush covering the beautiful prairies, the awe-inspiring view of the towering Wind River Mountains.
This is my home, and it has been the home of my Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho people long before my generation.
Via TT friend CG
Here is today’s opinion. An excerpt:
The Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation and the Arapaho Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation (collectively “the Tribes”) appeal the United States Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of Claim II as time-barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (2006), which bars all suits filed against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims unless filed within six years after the claim accrues. Because we conclude that the Tribes have alleged a continuing trespass, the Court of Federal Claims improperly determined that Claim II is time-barred in its entirety. Accordingly, as explained below, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
We posted the briefs here.
Here are the appellee briefs (the appellant brief is here):
Tonight’s CBS Evening News included a story on fracking in Pavillion, Wyoming that can be found here.
The NPR story on the subject can be found here. An excerpt:
People in Pavillion, located on the Wind River Indian Reservation, contacted the EPA three years ago, complaining that their water smelled and tasted bad.
The agency started sampling drinking water wells in 2009 and found low levels of methane and other hydrocarbons in most of those wells. Although the levels did not exceed drinking water standards in most cases, the agency recommended that people get other sources of water for drinking and cooking, Encana, the company which drilled the wells, started providing water. The company says it provides drinking water to 21 households at a cost of about $1,500 per month.
The agency was concerned that higher concentrations of some of the chemicals might be lurking elsewhere in the aquifer.
So EPA researchers drilled two wells and found lots of chemicals, which could be tied to drilling. For example, they found levels of benzene, which is known to cause cancer and other health effects, far higher than safe drinking water standards. The presence of other chemicals — like synthetic glycols and alcohols — persuaded them that the contamination was likely coming from fracking.
Finally, a recent post about fracking can be found here.
Here is the unpublished order.
Here are prior orders from federal and state courts in this matter.
Classic example of how Indian country is prejudiced in criminal cases Indian tribes cannot control; here, courts found the Wind River Reservation diminished.
Here is the opening brief in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger:
Lower court materials are here.
Here is that opinion, captioned Pine Bar Ranch LLC v. Acting Director, BIA (D. Mont.):
DCT Order Dismissing Pine Bar Ranch Complaint
An excerpt:
Indeed, a contrary result could run afoul of tribal sovereignty. “The power to exercise tribal civil authority over non-Indians derives not only from the tribe’s inherent powers necessary to self-government and territorial management, but also from the power to exclude nonmembers from tribal land.” Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587, 592 (9th Cir.1983) (citing Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 141–44, 102 S.Ct. 894, 903–05, 71 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982). Furthermore, it is well settled that a tribe may “place conditions on entry, on continued presence, or on reservation conduct …, [and] nonmember[s] who [enter] the jurisdiction of the tribe [remain] “subject to the risk that the tribe will later exercise [this] sovereign power.” Merrion at 144–45 (footnote omitted).
On January 12, 2011, the Tribes passed Tribal Resolution Number 2010–10277 reaffirming the non-public status of the road and stating that “the unpaved portion of Surrell Creek Road is not a public road or otherwise accessible to any member of the public without the permission of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes.” Doc. No, 20–7.
Especially in view of tribal sovereignty, the BIA had no direct statutory mandate to declare Surrell Creek Road public. Therefore, under the APA, there is no required agency action for this Court to “compel” or “hold unlawful and set aside.” Consequently, the Court is without jurisdiction, no material issue of fact remains and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Here is that brief in Shoshone Tribe v. United States: Wind River Tribes Opening Brief
You must be logged in to post a comment.