Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Administrative Law (3)
- Cultural Heritage Law (2)
- Energy and Utilities Law (2)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (2)
- Law and Race (2)
-
- Natural Resources Law (2)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (2)
- Water Law (2)
- Agriculture Law (1)
- Animal Law (1)
- Arts and Humanities (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Environmental Law (1)
- Indigenous Studies (1)
- Land Use Law (1)
- Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration (1)
- Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonial Studies (1)
- Science and Technology Law (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- Sociology (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Preview — Denezpi V. United States (2022). Double Jeopardy In Indian Country, Paul A. Hutton Iii
Preview — Denezpi V. United States (2022). Double Jeopardy In Indian Country, Paul A. Hutton Iii
Public Land & Resources Law Review
On February 22, the Supreme Court of the United States will decide the single issue of whether a Court of Indian Offenses constitutes a federal entity and, therefore, separate prosecutions in federal district court and a Court of Indian Offenses for the same act violates the Double Jeopardy Clause as prosecutions for the same offense.
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’ …
Sierra Club V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, 803 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2015), Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Sierra Club V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, 803 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2015), Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Despite the majority’s “needlessly circuitous” route, as described by concurring Judge Brown, Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stands as a limit of the application of NEPA to a private pipeline constructed largely on private land. While the main issue identified by the District of Columbia Circuit Court was the scope of environmental review required under NEPA, the court also addressed issues dealing with the ESA and the CWA relating to the construction and operation of a pipeline in the Midwest. The court held that under these circumstances, NEPA review was mandated only for those small stretches where …
Cascadia Wildlands V. Bureau Of Indian Affairs, Hannah R. Seifert
Cascadia Wildlands V. Bureau Of Indian Affairs, Hannah R. Seifert
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs exemplifies the discretion agencies enjoy when determining how to organize and present information in environmental assessments. In a case of first impression, the court relaxed the extent of analysis necessary to comply with NEPA by allowing reasonably foreseeable future projects to be aggregated with past projects. Additionally, the court permitted the BIA to circumvent the FWS’s Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl by holding that the CRA was subject only to the standards and guidelines of federal forest plans, not specific recovery plans.