Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Environmental Law (184)
- Natural Resources Law (184)
- Administrative Law (179)
- Land Use Law (176)
- Water Law (173)
-
- Energy and Utilities Law (170)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (169)
- Cultural Heritage Law (168)
- Science and Technology Law (162)
- Agriculture Law (161)
- Animal Law (156)
- Law and Race (130)
- Constitutional Law (79)
- Property Law and Real Estate (8)
- Agency (4)
- Civil Procedure (4)
- Jurisdiction (4)
- State and Local Government Law (4)
- Supreme Court of the United States (4)
- Common Law (3)
- Contracts (3)
- Government Contracts (3)
- International Law (3)
- Business Organizations Law (2)
- Consumer Protection Law (2)
- Courts (2)
- Estates and Trusts (2)
- Judges (2)
- Keyword
-
- Indian law (10)
- Indian Law (9)
- Climate change (8)
- Environmental law (8)
- Montana (8)
-
- Tribe (8)
- Alexander Blewett III School of Law (6)
- EPA (6)
- Environment (6)
- Indian (6)
- NEPA (6)
- Public Land & Resources Law Review (6)
- Tribal sovereignty (6)
- Environmentalism (5)
- Natural resources law (5)
- Ninth Circuit (5)
- Reservation (5)
- Tribes (5)
- Water (5)
- Bureau of Land Management (4)
- CERCLA (4)
- Climate Change (4)
- Environmental (4)
- Mining (4)
- Montana Law (4)
- Native American law (4)
- Natural Resources (4)
- PLRLR (4)
- Public lands (4)
- Public lands law (4)
Articles 181 - 206 of 206
Full-Text Articles in Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law
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 …
United States V. Gila Valley Irrigation District, Ryan L. Hickey
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.
Agua Caliente Band Of Cahuilla Indians V. Coachella Valley Water Dist., Rebecca Newsom
Agua Caliente Band Of Cahuilla Indians V. Coachella Valley Water Dist., Rebecca Newsom
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water Dist., the Ninth Circuit upheld the Tribe’s federal reserved right to the groundwater underlying its reservation. This decision enforces that the courts will not defer to state water law when there is an established federal reserved water right. Further, the Ninth Circuit expressly extended this right to groundwater.
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 …
Lewis V. Clarke, Lillian M. Alvernaz
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 …
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe V. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Jody D. Lowenstein
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe V. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Jody D. Lowenstein
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Standing Rock Sioux’s effort to enjoin the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ permitting of an oil pipeline was stifled by the United States District Court of the District of Columbia. In denying the preliminary injunction, the court held that the Tribe failed to show that the Corps violated the National Historic Preservation Act, and that the Tribe’s belated effort to litigate was futile after failing to participate in the consultation process.
Akiachak Native Community V. United States Department Of Interior, Lillian M. Alvernaz
Akiachak Native Community V. United States Department Of Interior, Lillian M. Alvernaz
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Alaska Native Tribes have long been classified differently than the federally recognized Indian tribes in the rest of the country. The Akiachak decision contributes to the shifting treatment of Alaska Native Tribes and clarifies their relationship with the federal government. The ability to put land into trust is essential to the protection of generations to come and the exercise of sovereign authority. By enabling Alaska Native tribes the ability to petition to put tribally owned fee land in trust, the DOI promotes and encourages tribal self-governance and empowerment.
United States V. Washington, Kirsa Shelkey
United States V. Washington, Kirsa Shelkey
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Pacific Northwest Treaties, now known as the Stevens Treaties, were negotiated in the 1850’s between the U.S. and Indian tribes, including the Suquamish Indian Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam, Lower Elwha Band of Klallams, Port Gamble Clallam, Nisqually Indian Tribe, Nooksack Tribe, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe, Upper Skagit Tribe, Tulalip Tribes, Lummi Indian Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, Puyallup Tribe, Hoh Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, Quileute Indian Tribe, Makah Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (“Tribes”). The Stevens Treaties stated that “the right of taking fish, …
What Should Tribes Expect From Federal Regulations? The Bureau Of Land Management’S Fracking Rule And The Problems With Treating Indian And Federal Lands Identically, Monte Mills
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The federal government’s various Indian policies create a number of boundaries across which Indian tribes must negotiate to ensure successful management of their natural resources. For example, the removal, reservation, and treaty-making period of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries created territorial boundaries that, for many tribes, did not align with their traditional homelands. Thereafter, allotment of many of the resulting tribal reservations decimated the tribal land base and left a checkerboard ownership pattern of land within many reservations. More recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court have limited tribal authority over the non-Indian owned squares on the …
Protecting Traditional Water Resources: Legal Options For Preserving Tribal Non-Consumptive Water Use, Julia Guarino
Protecting Traditional Water Resources: Legal Options For Preserving Tribal Non-Consumptive Water Use, Julia Guarino
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The law governing the quantification and use of tribal water rights is complex and inconsistent, creating major challenges for tribes working to gain control over and make use of their water resources. There are even greater challenges a tribe must overcome if it wishes to safeguard non- consumptive water uses not generally protected under Western water law regimes. Non-consumptive water uses include any use that does not require removing water from the natural water body. Such uses include protecting in-stream water flows for fisheries, riparian habitat, traditional plants, ceremonial uses, or recreation. There are legal tools available to tribes, however, …
“Salmon Is Culture, And Culture Is Salmon”: Reexamining The Implied Right To Habitat Protection As A Tool For Cultural And Ecological Preservation, Wesley J. Furlong
“Salmon Is Culture, And Culture Is Salmon”: Reexamining The Implied Right To Habitat Protection As A Tool For Cultural And Ecological Preservation, Wesley J. Furlong
Public Land & Resources Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Sacred Responsibility: Governing The Use Of Water And Related Resources In The International Columbia Basin Through The Prism Of Tribes And First Nations, Matthew J. Mckinney, Richard Kyle Paisley, Molly Smith Stenovec
A Sacred Responsibility: Governing The Use Of Water And Related Resources In The International Columbia Basin Through The Prism Of Tribes And First Nations, Matthew J. Mckinney, Richard Kyle Paisley, Molly Smith Stenovec
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In the fall of 2012, leaders from Columbia Basin First Nations and tribes participated, along with about 150 other people, in the 4th transboundary symposium convened by the Universities Consortium on Columbia River Governance. Gathered on the shores of Flathead Lake in Polson, Montana, the participants explored the interests, rights, roles, and responsibilities of indigenous people in the international Columbia River Basin. This symposium generated two notable outcomes: first, The Columbia River Basin: A Sense of the Future—a synthesis of interests and concerns with regard to the future of the transboundary river basin as captured by the Universities Consortium during …
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.
Agdaagux Tribe Of King Cove V. Jewell, Taylor R. Thompson
Agdaagux Tribe Of King Cove V. Jewell, Taylor R. Thompson
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In a lengthy opinion by the Alaska District Court, the battle for a proposed medical emergency road through the Izembek National Refuge stalled. The court held that the Department of the Interior’s No Action Alternative blocked the construction of the road was decided in accordance within the Department’s authority. It is not the end of the battle over the road, as the court alluded that Congress may be able to change this decision.
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.
Belcourt Public School District V. Davis, Hallie Bishop
Belcourt Public School District V. Davis, Hallie Bishop
Public Land & Resources Law Review
No abstract provided.
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.
Columbia River Treaty Renewal And Sovereign Tribal Authority Under The Stevens Treaty “Right-To-Fish” Clause, David A. Bell
Columbia River Treaty Renewal And Sovereign Tribal Authority Under The Stevens Treaty “Right-To-Fish” Clause, David A. Bell
Public Land & Resources Law Review
No abstract provided.
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.
Schaghticoke Tribal Nation V. Kent School Corporation Inc., Lindsey M. West
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 …
Jackson V. Payday Financial, Llc., Hannah S. Cail
Jackson V. Payday Financial, Llc., Hannah S. Cail
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Jackson v. Payday Financial, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held loan a provision requiring arbitration in tribal court was unreasonable and substantially and procedurally unconscionable. The Court rejected Payday’s argument that the dispute belonged in tribal court, because there was no subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims, and the defendants did not raise a colorable claim for tribal jurisdiction or tribal exhaustion.
Smith V. Parker, Lindsay M. Thane
Smith V. Parker, Lindsay M. Thane
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that an 1882 Act of Congress did not intend to diminish the boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation in Nebraska. The district court’s decision was affirmed because reservation land may not be divested from the tribe absent clear congressional intent to alter the reservation’s boundaries. Because the Omaha Reservation land was not diminished, the town of Pender, Nebraska—which currently sits on Reservation land—and residents of Pender, Nebraska who are engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages must comply with the Omaha Tribal Code’s imposition of a ten percent sales tax on these beverages.
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Of Indians V. Nevada, Dept. Of Wildlife, David A. Bell
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Of Indians V. Nevada, Dept. Of Wildlife, David A. Bell
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Nevada, Dept. of Wildlife, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a Nevada federal district court decision to vacate the Nevada state engineer’s approval of the transfer of three water applications. While the appeals court recognized the state’s re-watering of wetlands as a “salutary” purpose, it could not allow the engineer’s decision to go forward because it did not meet the legal definition of “irrigation.” The Court made the decision pursuant to two federal court decrees, which resulted from prior actions by the United States to quiet title to …
Western Montana Water Users Assoc., Llc V. Mission Irrigation District, David A. Bell
Western Montana Water Users Assoc., Llc V. Mission Irrigation District, David A. Bell
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Western Montana Water Users challenged the authority of the Flathead Joint Control Board to enter into a Water Use Agreement with Tribal, State, and Federal governments. This procedural challenge alleged that the Joint Control Board, made up of the irrigation districts, did not have the ability under Montana statutes to act for the irrigators without a specific vote of the members and approval from the district court. Two days after receiving the case the Montana Supreme Court reversed, determining that the statutes were inapplicable and the Joint Control Board had authority to enter the agreement.