Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Adjudicatory jurisdiction (1)
- And welfare of a tribe (1)
- Annual fee (1)
- CERCLA (1)
- Catastrophic (1)
-
- Clean-up permit (1)
- Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Act (1)
- Consent (1)
- Consent decree (1)
- Containment program (1)
- Declaratory judgement (1)
- District court (1)
- Dolgencorp (1)
- Dollar General (1)
- Due process (1)
- EPA (1)
- Economic security (1)
- En banc petition (1)
- Environmental Protection Agency (1)
- Existential threat to the health (1)
- FMC (1)
- FMC Corp. (1)
- FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (1)
- Federal Indian law (1)
- Fine (1)
- First Montana exception (1)
- Harm (1)
- Harm catastrophic for tribal self-governance (1)
- Hazardous waste (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law and Race
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 …
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 …