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 …

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 …