Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (9)
- Environmental Law (6)
- Law and Race (6)
- Natural Resources Law (6)
- Administrative Law (5)
-
- Energy and Utilities Law (5)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (5)
- Cultural Heritage Law (4)
- Land Use Law (4)
- Water Law (4)
- Agriculture Law (3)
- Animal Law (2)
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Property Law and Real Estate (2)
- Science and Technology Law (2)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Courts (1)
- Estates and Trusts (1)
- Government Contracts (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Legal Remedies (1)
- President/Executive Department (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Torts (1)
Articles 1 - 15 of 15
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Lustre Oil Co., Llc V. Anadarko Minerals, Inc., Ayden D. Auer
Lustre Oil Co., Llc V. Anadarko Minerals, Inc., Ayden D. Auer
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Montana Supreme Court held a limited liability company owned by the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes was not protected against a quiet title action by sovereign immunity.
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony V. Haaland, William N. Rose
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony V. Haaland, William N. Rose
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony v. Haaland added clarity to the scope of a federal agency’s duty to consult with Tribes under the National Historic Preservation Act. The case was the culmination of unsuccessful litigation efforts by Tribes to stop a large mining project, and it demonstrated the high hurdle Tribes face when challenging whether a federal agency has engaged in reasonable and good faith consultation.
Preview — Denezpi V. United States (2022). Double Jeopardy In Indian Country, Paul A. Hutton Iii
Preview — Denezpi V. United States (2022). Double Jeopardy In Indian Country, Paul A. Hutton Iii
Public Land & Resources Law Review
On February 22, the Supreme Court of the United States will decide the single issue of whether a Court of Indian Offenses constitutes a federal entity and, therefore, separate prosecutions in federal district court and a Court of Indian Offenses for the same act violates the Double Jeopardy Clause as prosecutions for the same offense.
Ute Indian Tribe Of The Uintah & Ouray Reservation V. U.S. Dep't Of Interior, Valan Anthos
Ute Indian Tribe Of The Uintah & Ouray Reservation V. U.S. Dep't Of Interior, Valan Anthos
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation brought 16 claims against federal agencies and the State of Utah for alleged mismanagement of water resources held in trust and for alleged discrimination in water allocation. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed several of the claims as time-barred and others as lacking a proper statutory basis to create an enforceable trust duty. The remaining claims were transferred to the United States District Court of the District of Utah because the events occurred in Utah and most of the parties reside there.
Mcgirt V. Oklahoma, Allison Barnwell
Mcgirt V. Oklahoma, Allison Barnwell
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The United States Supreme Court ruled that large areas of Oklahoma, including much of the City of Tulsa, are reservation land. The case arose from an Oklahoma state court’s conviction of Jimcy McGirt on several criminal offenses. Mr. McGirt argued the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute because he was an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and committed his crimes on the Creek Reservation. Under the Major Crimes Act, only the federal government has the power to try tribal members for crimes committed on reservation lands. In a five to four decision, the Court held that …
2018 James R. Browning Symposium Keynote, Matthew L.M. Fletcher
2018 James R. Browning Symposium Keynote, Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Montana Law Review
No abstract provided.
Tribal Nations And Congress's Power To Define Offences Against The Law Of Nations, John H. Dossett
Tribal Nations And Congress's Power To Define Offences Against The Law Of Nations, John H. Dossett
Montana Law Review
The Framers of the Constitution founded the United States on a principle that the federal government has limited, enumerated powers. This Article advances the Offences Clause as an additional, and important, source of federal authority in Indian affairs, particularly for the Indian Child Welfare Act. There is considerable evidence that the Offences Clause was intended to authorize Congress to regulate relationships with tribal nations as well as foreign governments. This Article puts forth the Offences Clause as a response to the challenges raised by Justice Thomas and the State of Texas, including concerns about racial classification or overreach of commerce …
On Indian Children And The Fifth Amendment, Matthew L.M. Fletcher
On Indian Children And The Fifth Amendment, Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Montana Law Review
No abstract provided.
United States V. Gillette: A Tiny Prairie Casenote Opening A Window On The Enveloping Fog Obscuring The Indian Civil Rights Act Of 1968, Frank Pommersheim
United States V. Gillette: A Tiny Prairie Casenote Opening A Window On The Enveloping Fog Obscuring The Indian Civil Rights Act Of 1968, Frank Pommersheim
Montana Law Review
United States v. Gillette is one of the first reported cases on the new post-United States v. Bryant road. As of yet, there is no reliable (legal) GPS to point the way. This "tiny prairie" casenote is not meant to focus on the answers, but rather clarify the questions and to widen the discussion as the journey continues.
Sovereign Metaphors In Indian Law, Gregory Ablavsky
Sovereign Metaphors In Indian Law, Gregory Ablavsky
Montana Law Review
This exploration reveals that tribes were not as anomalous as the Supreme Court of the United States has suggested. Even while the Court proclaimed the Tribes' uniqueness, it readily applied doctrines developed in the context of foreign nations, states and U.S. territories to Native nations, ignoring the differences between the situation of tribes and other sovereigns. This narrative about what tribes lack when compared to other sovereigns has become a constant, and pernicious, trope within the discourse of Indian law.
From Foundational Law To Limiting Principles In Federal Indian Law, Alexander T. Skibine
From Foundational Law To Limiting Principles In Federal Indian Law, Alexander T. Skibine
Montana Law Review
Federal Indian law has been "exceptional" in the sense of being distinctively compared to other areas of American Public Law. This Article analyzes areas of federal Indian Law where the application of exceptionalism and foundational principles is especially likely to motive the Supreme Court of the United States to search for limiting principles. The Article focuses on tribal sovereign immunity cases, tribal-state conflicts involving off-reservation treaty rights, and state taxing power within Indian reservations.
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Osage Nation, as owner of the beneficial interest in its mineral estate, issues federally-approved leases to persons and entities who wish to conduct mineral development on its lands. After an energy-development company, Osage Wind, leased privately-owned surface lands within Tribal reservation boundaries and began to excavate minerals for purposes of constructing a wind farm, the United States brought suit on the Tribe’s behalf. In the ensuing litigation, the Osage Nation insisted that Osage Wind should have obtained a mineral lease from the Tribe before beginning its work. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit applied one of the Indian law …
United States V. Gila Valley Irrigation District, Ryan L. Hickey
United States V. Gila Valley Irrigation District, Ryan L. Hickey
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Attempts to alter water use agreements, especially those spanning back decades or even centuries, elicit intense scrutiny from water rights holders. In United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., the Ninth Circuit upheld application of a 1935 Decree apportioning water among various regional entities, including two Indian tribes, to bar a mineral company from transferring water rights between properties within the Gila River drainage.
Lewis V. Clarke, Lillian M. Alvernaz
Lewis V. Clarke, Lillian M. Alvernaz
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The nation to nation relationship between tribes and the federal government is unique. Within that relationship, the federal government acknowledges and respects tribal sovereignty. An important aspect of sovereignty is sovereign immunity. Lewis v. Clarke confronts the applicability of sovereign immunity through an extension of tribal sovereignty over an employee defendant. After having heard oral argument, the United States Supreme Court could either reaffirm or severely limit the applicability of tribal sovereign immunity to “arms” of a tribe. While the lower court analyzed tribal sovereign immunity by considering the damages sought, the Supreme Court opinion portends to extend far beyond …
Schaghticoke Tribal Nation V. Kent School Corporation Inc., Lindsey M. West
Schaghticoke Tribal Nation V. Kent School Corporation Inc., Lindsey M. West
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of three consolidated actions of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation claiming the Schaghticoke had been dispossessed of Indian land without the approval of Congress, a violation of the Nonintercourse Act. The court found the district court correctly deferred under the primary jurisdiction doctrine to the United States Department of Interior’s determination that the Schaghticoke did not qualify for tribal status. Additionally, the district court properly relied on the Department of Interior’s factual findings in holding the Schaghticoke presented insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie violation of the Nonintercourse …