Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Tribal rights (3)
- Administrative law (1)
- Bingo (1)
- Coastal zone management act (1)
- Endangered species act (1)
-
- Fishing rights (1)
- Gambling (1)
- Gaming law (1)
- Gas (1)
- Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (1)
- Indian canons of construction (1)
- Manoomin (1)
- Metlakatla (1)
- Mining (1)
- Mining claim (1)
- Mining plan (1)
- National environmental policy act (1)
- Oil (1)
- Ojibwe (1)
- Outer continental sheld (1)
- Reserved rights (1)
- Rights of nature (1)
- Rosemont (1)
- Tailings (1)
- Waste rock (1)
- White Earth Band of Ojibwe (1)
- Wild rice (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Minnesota Dep’T Of Nat. Res. V. Manoomin, Anna Belinski
Minnesota Dep’T Of Nat. Res. V. Manoomin, Anna Belinski
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 2021 manoomin (wild rice), a legally recognized person in White Earth Band tribal law, brought a case in White Earth Band of Ojibwe Tribal Court against the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Wild rice brought this case against the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ over its issuance of a water permit to Enbridge Inc. for the construction of the Line 3 oil pipeline. Though ultimately ruling that the Tribal Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the activity at issue occurred by non-Indians outside of the reservation boundaries, this case still brings a novel consideration in the tribal …
Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo V. Texas, Sawyer J. Connelly
Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo V. Texas, Sawyer J. Connelly
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes. The Court’s decision settles a conflict around bingo stemming from a long series of conflicts between Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Texas gaming officials dating back to the 1980s. The court held the Texas Restoration Act bans only gaming on tribal lands that is also banned in Texas. This decision upholds previous caselaw that states cannot bar tribes from gaming that is not categorically banned in the state.
Environmental Defense Center V. Bureau Of Ocean Energy Management, Eliot M. Thompson
Environmental Defense Center V. Bureau Of Ocean Energy Management, Eliot M. Thompson
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s grants of summary judgment and injunctive relief against BOEM for violating the ESA and CZMA. The Ninth Circuit found BOEM violated NEPA, CZMA, and the APA by failing to adequately consider the environmental impacts of well stimulation treatments. The Ninth Circuit also reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment against the Environmental Defense Center for their NEPA claims.
Metlakatla Indian Community V. Dunleavy, Elizabeth L. Orvis
Metlakatla Indian Community V. Dunleavy, Elizabeth L. Orvis
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court of Alaska’s judgment that dismissed the Metlakatla Indian Community’s suit against Alaska’s limited entry program. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether and to what extent the 1891 Act preserved an implied off-reservation fishing right for members of the Metlakatla Indian Community. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the Metlakatla Indian Community but remanded to the district court to determine the boundaries of the traditional off-reservation fishing grounds. Motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied.
Ctr. For Biological Diversity V. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., Ali Stapleton
Ctr. For Biological Diversity V. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., Ali Stapleton
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court of Arizona’s decision to deny a proposed mining plan becuase the operations exceeded the boundaries of a valid mining claim. The issue the court addressed is whether a permanent occupancy of waste rock and tailings on land, absent the discovery of valuable minerals, is a reasonable use related to mining activities. The Ninth Circuit decision effectively prevented mining companies from amending the 1872 Mining Law on the administrative record. Motions for a rehearing and a rehearing en banc were denied.