Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Tribal rights (3)
- APA (2)
- Constitution (2)
- Due process (2)
- EPA (2)
-
- Fifth Amendment (2)
- Gas (2)
- Indian (2)
- Indian Law (2)
- Law (2)
- Montana (2)
- Oil (2)
- Reservation (2)
- Safety (2)
- Tribal jurisdiction (2)
- Tribal sovereignty (2)
- Trump (2)
- 1983 claim (1)
- 25 U.S.C. § 1302 (1)
- 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(2) (1)
- AEA (1)
- Adjacent (1)
- Adjudicatory jurisdiction (1)
- Administrative law (1)
- Adoption (1)
- Adoptive homes (1)
- Alexander Blewett III School of Law (1)
- American Humanist Association (1)
- American Legion (1)
- And welfare of a tribe (1)
Articles 31 - 36 of 36
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brackeen V. Zinke, Bradley E. Tinker
Brackeen V. Zinke, Bradley E. Tinker
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 1978, Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act to counter practices of removing Indian children from their homes, and to ensure the continued existence of Indian tribes through their children. The law created a framework establishing how Indian children are adopted as a way to protect those children and their relationship with their tribe. ICWA also established federal standards for Indian children being placed into non-Indian adoptive homes. Brackeen v. Zinke made an important distinction for the placement preferences of the Indian children adopted by non-Indian plaintiffs; rather than viewing the placement preferences in ICWA as based upon Indians’ …
Wyoming V. Zinke, Jaclyn Van Natta
Wyoming V. Zinke, Jaclyn Van Natta
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Wyoming v. Zinke, the Bureau of Land Management attempted to update a regulation governing hydraulic fracturing from the 1980s, but oil and gas industry companies opposed, and brought suit. The district court held in favor of the industry petitioners, and the Bureau of Land Management and citizen group intervenors appealed. In the wake of appeal, Donald J. Trump became President of the United States. The administration change caused the Bureau of Land Management to alter its position and align with the new administration. Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, via executive order, began rescinding the new fracking regulation, …
Herr V. U.S. Forest Service, Peter B. Taylor
Herr V. U.S. Forest Service, Peter B. Taylor
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Herr v. U. S. Forest Service, the Sixth Circuit ruled on whether the Forest Service could infringe on pre-existing private property rights held adjacent to a designated Wilderness Area. The Herrs purchased lakefront property adjacent to the Sylvania Wilderness in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan with the intention of using their littoral rights for recreational boating. The Sylvania Wilderness was created under the Michigan Wilderness Act in 1987, but the Act observed valid existing rights. The court found that the Herrs’ littoral rights were recognizable “valid existing rights.” Therefore, the Forest Service’s restriction of those rights was illegal.
Mauna Kea Anaina Hou V. Board Of Land And Natural Resources, Wesley J. Furlong
Mauna Kea Anaina Hou V. Board Of Land And Natural Resources, Wesley J. Furlong
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Native Hawaiians and the scientific community have been pitted against each other in a decades-long culture war over the construction of observatories and telescopes on sacred landscapes. In Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, the Hawai’i Supreme Court handed a victory to Native Hawaiian culture and rights by halting the construction of a new telescope on Mauna Kea. The decision must be read cautiously, however, as it is firmly rooted in the strict application of procedural due process.
Using The New Equal Protection To Challenge Federal Control Over Tribal Lands, Alex T. Skibine
Using The New Equal Protection To Challenge Federal Control Over Tribal Lands, Alex T. Skibine
Public Land & Resources Law Review
No abstract provided.
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission V. U.S., Katelyn J. Hepburn
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission V. U.S., Katelyn J. Hepburn
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from the Supreme Court, reconsidered whether temporary increased dam-releases resulting in downstream flooding, constituted a physical taking under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Applying the Supreme Court’s more complex balancing test, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ decision holding that temporary government-induced flooding can qualify as a Fifth Amendment taking. The court upheld an award of damages in excess of $5.7 million.