Law Commons^™

Amicus Brief Of Native Nations In Montana, Kathryn Shanley, And Denise Juneau, Held V. State Of Montana, Montana Supreme Court Docket No. Da 23-0575, Monte Mills, Jeremiah Chin, Mia Montoya Hammersley, Fredrick Ole Ikayo, Clare Derby, Natasha De La Cruz

Court Briefs

Montana’s Constitution specifically recognizes and protects the right of Native Nations and Indigenous individuals to preserve and sustain their cultural traditions through the education of future generations. These rights are inherently tied to the right to a clean and healthful environment.

Brief Of Legal Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Becerra V. San Carlos Apache Tribe, Becerra V. Northern Arapaho Tribe, U.S. Supreme Court Docket Nos. 23-250 & 23-253, Gregory Ablavsky, Seth Davis, Patty Ferguson-Bohnee, Ethan J. Leib, Dan Lewerenz, Nazune Menka, Monte Mills, Richard Monette, Joseph William Singer, Gerald Torres, Rebecca Tsosie

Court Briefs

Congress has enacted into law thousands of statutory provisions containing rules of construction. These rules direct courts to the permissible interpretations of the statutes that Congress enacts.

With respect to the self-determination contracts between Indian tribes and the United States at issue in these cases, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) prescribes two interpretive rules that serve as congressional directives to this Court. First, each provision of the self-determination contract must be construed liberally for the benefit of the tribe. Second, the same is true of the statute itself: each provision of the ISDA must be construed liberally …

(Some) Land Back...Sort Of: The Transfer Of Federal Public Lands To Indian Tribes Since 1970, Audrey Glendenning, Martin Nie, Monte Mills

Articles

Federal public lands in the United States were carved from the territories of Native Nations and, in nearly every instance, required that the United States extinguish pre-existing aboriginal title. Following acquisition of these lands, the federal government pursued various strategies for them, including disposal to states and private parties, managing lands to allow for multiple uses, and conservation or protection. After over a century of such varied approaches, the modern public landscape is a complex milieu of public and private interests, laws and policies, and patchwork ownership patterns. This complexity depends on—and begins with—the history of Indigenous dispossession but subsequent …

Brief Of Tribal Nations And Indian Organizations As Amici Curiae In Support Of The Navajo Nation, U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 21-1484, Monte Mills, Heather D. Whiteman Runs Him, Dylan R. Hedden-Nicely, John E. Echohawk, Steven C. Moore, David L. Gover, Joe M. Tenorio, Ada Montague Stepleton, Morgan E. Saunders, Wesley James Furlong, Sydney Tarzwell

Court Briefs

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: The Winters Doctrine recognizes and gives effect to the promises made by the United States in treaties, congressionally ratified agreements, and executive orders that Tribal Nations would retain permanent and viable homelands. These promises, made in exchange for the Tribal Nations’ cession of billions of acres of land, paved the way for the non-Indian settlement of the West. Although every tribal homeland is unique, invariably, each requires water to be livable. Applying the canons of construction this Court has developed as part of its federal Indian law jurisprudence, as well as the history and circumstances surrounding the …

Bridges To A New Era Part 2: A Report On The Past, Present, And Potential Future Of Tribal Co-Management On Federal Lands In Alaska, Monte Mills, Martin Nie

Articles

Nowhere else in the United States are tribal connections and reliance on federal public lands as deep and geographically broad-based as in what is now Alaska. The number of Tribes—229 federally recognized tribes—and the scope of the public land resource—nearly 223 million acres—are simply unparalleled. Across that massive landscape, federal public lands and the subsistence uses they provide remain, as they have been since time immemorial, “essential to Native physical, economic, traditional, and cultural existence.”^[1] Alas, the institutions, systems, and processes responsible for managing those lands, protecting those uses, and honoring those connections are failing Alaska Native Tribes.

The …

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe and Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe v. Lummi Nation, Docket No. 21-913 (142 S.Ct. 1123 (2022))

No abstract provided.

Bridges To A New Era: A Report On The Past, Present, And Potential Future Of Tribal Co-Management On Federal Public Lands, Monte Mills, Martin Nie

Articles

Deep ancestral and traditional connections tie many Native Nations to the federal government’s public lands. The removal of these lands from indigenous control, their acquisition by the federal government, and the federal government’s approach to their management are largely premised upon the erasure or marginalization of those connections. Both physically and legally, Indian tribes have been removed from the landscapes they occupied since time immemorial. Rather than centering, honoring, and using those connections, the current discussion of tribal co-management of federal public lands is mostly bereft of this full legal and historical context.

Compounding these limitations is the considerable discretion …

Beyond The Belloni Decision: Sohappy V. Smith And The Modern Era Of Tribal Treaty Rights, Monte Mills

Articles

Indian tribes and their members are leading a revived political, legal, and social movement to protect the nation’s natural resources. In doing so, tribes and their allies employ many effective strategies but core to the movement are the historic promises made to tribes by the United States through treaties. Tribes are asserting treaty-protected rights, which the United States Constitution upholds as the supreme law of the land, to defend the resources on which they and their ancestors have relied for generations. Those claims have resulted in significant legal victories, igniting a broader movement in favor of tribal sovereignty and securing …

Motion For Leave To File Amicus Curiae Brief And Brief Of United Catcher Boats As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner

Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe and Quinault Indian Nation, Docket No. 17-1592 (139 S.Ct. 106 (2018))

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Respondent State Of Washington Department Of Fish And Wildlife In Support Of Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe and Quinault Indian Nation, Docket No. 17-1592 (139 S.Ct. 106 (2018))

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief For The Petitioner

Washington v. United States, Docket No. 17-269 (138 S.Ct. 735 (2018))

No abstract provided.

Brief Amicus Curiae On Behalf Of Pacific Coast Federation Of Fishermen’S Associations, Alaska Trollers Association, Institute For Fisheries Resources, Fly Fishers International, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Northwest Guides And Anglers Association, Association Of Northwest Steelheaders, And The Conservation Angler In Support Of Respondents

Washington v. United States, Docket No. 17-269 (138 S.Ct. 735 (2018))

No abstract provided.

Indigenous Rights To Water & Environmental Protection, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

This article examines the rights of Indian nations in the United States to adequate water supplies and environmental protection for their land and associated resources. Part I of this article provides a brief background on the history of federal-tribal relations and the source and scope of federal obligations to protect tribal resources. Part II reviews the source and nature of the federal government’s moral and legal obligations to Indian tribes, which are generally referred to as the trust responsibility. Indian reserved water rights and the difficulty tribes experience in protecting habitat needed for healthy treaty resources is discussed in Part …

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

Washington v. United States, Docket No. 17-269 (138 S.Ct. 735 (2018))

No abstract provided.

Foreword: A ‘Coyote Warrior’ And The ‘Great Paradoxes,’ The Scholarship Of Professor Raymond Cross, Monte Mills

Articles

This Foreword to the Public Land and Resources Law Review special issue republishing and celebrating the scholarship of Professor Raymond Cross provides a context and framework for understanding and appreciating the issue's articles. The Foreword reviews Professor Cross' legacy of work as a tribal attorney on behalf of the Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara) of the Fort Berthold Reservation and discusses the important contributions his scholarly work continue to make to the field of Federal Indian Law. As noted at the conclusion of the Foreword, "[i]t is a true honor to introduce and present some of his important …

Beyond A Zero-Sum Federal Trust Responsibility: Lessons From Federal Indian Energy Policy, Monte Mills

Articles

The federal government’s trust relationship with federally recognized Indian tribes is a product of the last two centuries of Federal Indian Law and federal-tribal relations. For approximately the last 50 years, the federal government has sought to promote tribal self-determination as a means to carry out its trust responsibilities to Indian tribes; but the shadows of prior federal policies, based largely on notions of tribal incompetence and federal paternalism, remain. Perhaps no other policy arena better demonstrates the history, evolution, and promise for reform of the federal trust relationship than Federal Indian energy policy, or the range of federal statutes …

New Approaches To Energy Development In Indian Country: The Trust Relationship And Tribal Self-Determination At (Yet Another) Crossroads, Monte Mills

Articles

Energy development in Indian country exists at the crossroads of tribal self-determination and the federal government's trust responsibility. This article reviews the foundations of this crossroads, describes recent developments, and analyzes pending proposals that may enhance both tribal sovereignty and energy development in Indian country.

What Should Tribes Expect From Federal Regulations? The Bureau Of Land Management's Fracking Rule And The Problems With Treating Indian And Federal Lands Identically, Monte Mills

Articles

On March 26, 2015, the Bureau of Land management (BLM) published its Final Rule regarding Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands (Final Rule). Work on the Rule had begun nearly four and a half years earlier as a way to update the agency’s outdated regulatory scheme to account for new fracking technology and growing public concern over the practice and potential safety concerns related to fracking.

The Final Rule amassed a number of procedural and substantive requirements for fracking operations and proposed to apply these standards uniformly to both public lands and lands held in trust by the Federal …

Sovereignty And Subsistence: Native Self-Government And Rights To Hunt, Fish, And Gather After Ansca, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was passed in 1971 to extinguish aboriginal rights of Alaska Natives and provide compensation for those rights extinguished. Instead of vesting assets (land and money) in tribal governments, Congress required the formation of Alaska Native corporations to receive and hold these assets. A major flaw in the settlement was the failure to provide statutory protections for the aboriginal hunting, fishing, and gathering rights extinguished by ANCSA. Moreover, while ANCSA did not directly address Alaska Native tribal status or jurisdiction, the Supreme Court interpreted the Act to terminate the Indian country status of ANCSA …

Federal Treaty And Trust Obligations, And Ocean Acidification, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

Ocean acidification will have profound effects on the entire human population and natural resources that depend in any way upon Earth’s oceans and lakes. In turn, those effects will be even greater, and potentially catastrophic, for indigenous populations who rely on the seas for physical, cultural, and spiritual sustenance. While most research on carbon dioxide absorption from the atmosphere has focused on oceans and the resulting acidification, many believe that acidification levels also will also increase in the Great Lakes. Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest and the Great Lakes regions share reliance on marine and freshwater resources, and many …

Water Rights, Water Quality, And Regulatory Jurisdiction In Indian Country, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

In the seminal Indian water rights case, Winters v. United Slates (1908), the Court posed this question: "The Indians had command of the lands and the waters-command of all their beneficial use, whether kept for hunting, 'and grazing roving herds of stock,' or turned to agriculture and the arts of civilization. Did they give up all this?" The Court's answer was no, and since then a large body of law has developed around Indian water rights, although the primary focus has been on the amount of water reserved for various tribal purposes. While Indian nations use property rights theories to …

Negotiating Jurisdiction: Retroceding State Authority Over Indian Country Granted By Public Law 280, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

This Article canvasses the jurisdictional rules applicable in American Indian tribal territories-"Indian country." The focus is on a federal law passed in the 1950s, which granted some states a measure of jurisdiction over Indian country without tribal consent. The law is an aberration. Since the adoption of the Constitution, federal law preempted state authority over Indians in their territory. The federal law permitting some state jurisdiction, Public Law 280, is a relic of a policy repudiated by every President and Congress since 1970. States have authority to surrender, or retrocede, the authority granted by Public Law 280, but Indian tribal …

Reply Brief For Petitioner

Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))

No abstract provided.

Brief In Opposition To Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari By Respondent Tribes Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, And Tulalip Tribes

Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))

No abstract provided.

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))

No abstract provided.

Indian Water Rights, Practical Reasoning, And Negotiated Settlements, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

This Article first reviews the few Indian water rights cases that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided. The Article then traces a threshold issue common to Indian water rights litigation in the federal and state courts: how to determine the purposes of a reservation for which a reserved water right should be implied. A review of major Indian water rights cases demonstrates the generally confusing state of the law in significant respects, especially with regard to the "purposes" determination.

This Article posits that the relative uncertainty in this area has created an environment in which creative, practical solutions to conflicts …

Answering Brief For The United States

United States v. Washington, Docket No. 08-35794 (593 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2009) (as amended Jan. 10, 2010))

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief Of Appellants Makah, Puyallup, Quileute, Upper Skagit, Nisqually And Squaxin Island Indian Tribes, Lummi Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, And Swinomish Indian Tribal Community

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))

No abstract provided.

Appellant Suquamish Tribe's Reply Brief To Response Brief Of Appellee Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Brief Of Appellee Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, The Tulalip Tribes' Response Brief And Response Brief Of Intervenors Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))

No abstract provided.

Response Brief Of Appellees Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))

No abstract provided.