Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (8)
- Natural Resources Law (6)
- Environmental Law (5)
- Administrative Law (4)
- Energy and Utilities Law (4)
-
- Land Use Law (4)
- Water Law (4)
- Civil Procedure (3)
- Common Law (3)
- Contracts (3)
- Government Contracts (3)
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Law and Race (3)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (3)
- Supreme Court of the United States (3)
- Agency (2)
- Business Organizations Law (2)
- Courts (2)
- Cultural Heritage Law (2)
- Estates and Trusts (2)
- Legal Remedies (2)
- President/Executive Department (2)
- Property Law and Real Estate (2)
- Science and Technology Law (2)
- State and Local Government Law (2)
- Torts (2)
- Agriculture Law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Conflict of Laws (1)
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
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 …
Solenex Llc V. Jewell, F. Aaron Rains
Solenex Llc V. Jewell, F. Aaron Rains
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Solenex LLC v. Jewell, the Secretary of the Interior cancelled a highly contentious oil and gas lease in Montana’s Badger-Two Medicine area, an environmentally sensitive and culturally significant area to the Blackfeet Tribe, nearly thirty years after the lease had been issued. Solenex, a Louisiana based oil and gas company and holder of the lease, brought this action to enjoin the cancellation. The District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with Solenex and found that the Secretary’s decision took an unreasonable amount of time and violated good-faith contractual obligations. On these grounds, the court found the Secretary’s …
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, …
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Osage Nation, as owner of the beneficial interest in its mineral estate, issues federally-approved leases to persons and entities who wish to conduct mineral development on its lands. After an energy-development company, Osage Wind, leased privately-owned surface lands within Tribal reservation boundaries and began to excavate minerals for purposes of constructing a wind farm, the United States brought suit on the Tribe’s behalf. In the ensuing litigation, the Osage Nation insisted that Osage Wind should have obtained a mineral lease from the Tribe before beginning its work. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit applied one of the Indian law …
Lewis V. Clarke, Summer L. Carmack
Lewis V. Clarke, Summer L. Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
One manner in which Indian tribes exercise their inherent sovereignty is by asserting sovereign immunity. In Lewis v. Clarke, the Court decided that the sovereign immunity extended to instrumentalities of tribes did not further extend to tribal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The Court acknowledged the concerns of the lower court, namely, the possibility of setting a precedent allowing future plaintiffs to sidestep a tribe’s sovereign immunity by suing a tribal employee in his individual capacity. However, the Supreme Court ultimately felt that the immunity of tribal employees should not exceed the immunity extended to state …
In Re Crow Water Compact, Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
In Re Crow Water Compact, Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In re Crow Water Compact is the second appeal from the Crow Water Compact, agreed upon by the Settling Parties to distribute and manage water rights amongst themselves. The decision upholds the negotiated Compact for the second time, affirming the Montana Water Court’s decision granting summary judgment to the Settling Parties over objections by the Objectors and approving the Compact by a final order. This decision represents the last step in a process, started in 1979, to define and quantify the reserved water rights for current and future uses of the Crow Nation in Montana.
Tulalip Tribes V. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Kevin B. Rechkoff
Tulalip Tribes V. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Kevin B. Rechkoff
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In a longstanding battle between two entrenched Indian tribes, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed fishing access doctrines established in the Boldt Decisions. Consequentially, the Boldt Decisions have been confirmed as the preeminent authority in determining tribal fishing rights in conjunction with treaties and inter-tribal conflicts. By applying the Boldt standards of “usual and accustomed,” the Ninth Circuit demonstrated its commitment to giving tribes a wide breadth in establishing claims to fishing grounds off reservation. In the future, fishing treaty litigation will continue with the Boldt standard’s low burden of proof for tribes asserting fishing access rights.
Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore
Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained the correct application of the zone of interests test and further solidified the importance of proper NEPA and NHPA analysis in geothermal leasing. The court reaffirmed that the BLM and the Forest Service must conduct additional cultural and environmental analysis when granting lease extensions under the Geothermal Steam Act. Furthermore, it rejected the BLM’s decision to grant forty-year lease continuations to unproven geothermal leases by treating them as a unit rather than individually.
Crow Tribe Of Indians – Montana Compact, Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Crow Tribe Of Indians – Montana Compact, Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Public Land & Resources Law Review
This order from the Montana Water Court approved the Crow Water Compact over objections by non-tribal water users in Montana. Although the Objectors have appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court, this order represents the next-to-last step in a process, started in 1979, to define and quantify the reserved water rights for current and future uses of the Crow Nation in Montana. The order provides a clear roadmap for other Montana tribes still seeking to achieve approval of a water compact by the Montana Water Court, and for objectors who would attempt to invalidate a compact in future proceedings.