Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Law

Lustre Oil Co., Llc V. Anadarko Minerals, Inc., Ayden D. Auer May 2024

Lustre Oil Co., Llc V. Anadarko Minerals, Inc., Ayden D. Auer

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Montana Supreme Court held a limited liability company owned by the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes was not protected against a quiet title action by sovereign immunity.


Reno-Sparks Indian Colony V. Haaland, William N. Rose May 2024

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony V. Haaland, William N. Rose

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony v. Haaland added clarity to the scope of a federal agency’s duty to consult with Tribes under the National Historic Preservation Act. The case was the culmination of unsuccessful litigation efforts by Tribes to stop a large mining project, and it demonstrated the high hurdle Tribes face when challenging whether a federal agency has engaged in reasonable and good faith consultation.


Preview — Denezpi V. United States (2022). Double Jeopardy In Indian Country, Paul A. Hutton Iii Feb 2022

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.


Ute Indian Tribe Of The Uintah & Ouray Reservation V. U.S. Dep't Of Interior, Valan Anthos Dec 2021

Ute Indian Tribe Of The Uintah & Ouray Reservation V. U.S. Dep't Of Interior, Valan Anthos

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation brought 16 claims against federal agencies and the State of Utah for alleged mismanagement of water resources held in trust and for alleged discrimination in water allocation. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed several of the claims as time-barred and others as lacking a proper statutory basis to create an enforceable trust duty. The remaining claims were transferred to the United States District Court of the District of Utah because the events occurred in Utah and most of the parties reside there.


Mcgirt V. Oklahoma, Allison Barnwell Sep 2020

Mcgirt V. Oklahoma, Allison Barnwell

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The United States Supreme Court ruled that large areas of Oklahoma, including much of the City of Tulsa, are reservation land. The case arose from an Oklahoma state court’s conviction of Jimcy McGirt on several criminal offenses. Mr. McGirt argued the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute because he was an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and committed his crimes on the Creek Reservation. Under the Major Crimes Act, only the federal government has the power to try tribal members for crimes committed on reservation lands. In a five to four decision, the Court held that …


United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack Dec 2017

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 …


United States V. Gila Valley Irrigation District, Ryan L. Hickey Oct 2017

United States V. Gila Valley Irrigation District, Ryan L. Hickey

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Attempts to alter water use agreements, especially those spanning back decades or even centuries, elicit intense scrutiny from water rights holders. In United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., the Ninth Circuit upheld application of a 1935 Decree apportioning water among various regional entities, including two Indian tribes, to bar a mineral company from transferring water rights between properties within the Gila River drainage.


Lewis V. Clarke, Lillian M. Alvernaz Apr 2017

Lewis V. Clarke, Lillian M. Alvernaz

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The nation to nation relationship between tribes and the federal government is unique. Within that relationship, the federal government acknowledges and respects tribal sovereignty. An important aspect of sovereignty is sovereign immunity. Lewis v. Clarke confronts the applicability of sovereign immunity through an extension of tribal sovereignty over an employee defendant. After having heard oral argument, the United States Supreme Court could either reaffirm or severely limit the applicability of tribal sovereign immunity to “arms” of a tribe. While the lower court analyzed tribal sovereign immunity by considering the damages sought, the Supreme Court opinion portends to extend far beyond …


Schaghticoke Tribal Nation V. Kent School Corporation Inc., Lindsey M. West Mar 2015

Schaghticoke Tribal Nation V. Kent School Corporation Inc., Lindsey M. West

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of three consolidated actions of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation claiming the Schaghticoke had been dispossessed of Indian land without the approval of Congress, a violation of the Nonintercourse Act. The court found the district court correctly deferred under the primary jurisdiction doctrine to the United States Department of Interior’s determination that the Schaghticoke did not qualify for tribal status. Additionally, the district court properly relied on the Department of Interior’s factual findings in holding the Schaghticoke presented insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie violation of the Nonintercourse …