Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Preview—United States V. Cooley: What Will Happen To The Thinnest Blue Line?, Jo J. Phippin
Preview—United States V. Cooley: What Will Happen To The Thinnest Blue Line?, Jo J. Phippin
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Supreme Court of the United States ("Supreme Court") will hear oral arguments in this matter on Tuesday, March 23, 2021. This case presents the narrow issue of whether a tribal police officer has the authority to investigate and detain a non-Indian on a public right-of-way within a reservation for a suspected violation of state or federal law. The lower courts, holding that tribes have no such authority, granted James Cooley’s motion to suppress evidence. The Supreme Court must decide whether the lower courts erred in so deciding. While the issue before the Supreme Court is itself narrow, it has …
Non-Indian Reservations, Joshua Matthew Rosenau
Non-Indian Reservations, Joshua Matthew Rosenau
Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers
This thesis is a skeptical treatment of the logical distinctions presumed to exist between “Indian” and “non-Indian” people. Despite representing 99 percent of the U.S. population, “non-Indians” represent a legal identity which has no explicit definition. The basis for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions regarding non-Indians and Indians rests not on any objective, empirical or logical criterion or proof, but rather on the “assumption of a ‘guardian-ward’ status. This thesis investigates this assumption, and recommends that we suspend judgment on whether the difference between “Indians” and “non-Indians” can be determined either by logical argument or by legal assumption.
Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla
Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …
Hoopa Valley Tribe V. Ferc, Fredrick Aaron Rains
Hoopa Valley Tribe V. Ferc, Fredrick Aaron Rains
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC, the Hoopa Valley Tribe challenged the intentional and continual delay of state water quality certification review of water discharged from a series of dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the states of Oregon and California, and PacifiCorp, a hydroelectric operator, were implementing an administrative scheme designed to circumvent a one-year temporal requirement for review imposed on states by the Clean Water Act. This scheme allowed PacifiCorp to operate the series of dams for over a decade without proper state water quality certification. The United States …
Upstate Citizens For Equality, Inc. V. United States, Kirsa Shelkey
Upstate Citizens For Equality, Inc. V. United States, Kirsa Shelkey
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Indian Reorganization Act of 1935 is the proper avenue for Tribes pursuing restoration of their historic trust lands. The Oneida Indian Nation of New York long sought to reassert tribal jurisdiction over its historic homeland in Central New York. These efforts were largely unsuccessful until 2008 when the United States took 13,000 acres of this historic homeland into trust on behalf of the Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act. This case affirms the federal government’s plenary powers over Indian Tribes, and that neither state sovereignty principles, nor the Enclave Clause upset that authority.
Navajo Nation V. Department Of The Interior, Jaclyn R. Van Natta
Navajo Nation V. Department Of The Interior, Jaclyn R. Van Natta
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Navajo Nation v. Department of the Interior, the Navajo Nation challenged the Department of the Interior’s 2001 and 2008 water allocation guidelines and asserted that under NEPA and the APA the guidelines violated the Navajo Nation’s water rights. The Navajo Nation also asserted a breach of trust claim against the United States. After nearly a decade of attempted settlement negotiations, the Navajo Nation reasserted its complaints. The District Court for the District of Arizona denied the Navajo Nation’s motions, and the Navajo Nation appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined the Navajo Nation lacked standing, …
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe V. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Jody D. Lowenstein
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe V. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Jody D. Lowenstein
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Standing Rock Sioux’s effort to enjoin the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ permitting of an oil pipeline was stifled by the United States District Court of the District of Columbia. In denying the preliminary injunction, the court held that the Tribe failed to show that the Corps violated the National Historic Preservation Act, and that the Tribe’s belated effort to litigate was futile after failing to participate in the consultation process.