Native American Natu ral Resources Law
|
|
- Camron Bridges
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Native American Natu ral Resources Law
2
3 Native American Natu ral Resources Law Cases and Materials fourth edition Judith V. Royster Professor of Law Co- Director, Native American Law Center University of Tulsa College of Law Michael C. Blumm Jeffrey Bain Faculty Scholar & Professor of Law Lewis & Clark Law School Elizabeth Ann Kronk Warner Professor of Law Director, Tribal Law & Government Center University of Kansas School of Law Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina
4 Copyright 2018 Carolina Academic Press, LLC All Rights Reserved ISBN eisbn LCCN Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina Telephone (919) Fax (919) Printed in the United States of America
5 We dedicate this book to Indian Law students everywhere who are concerned about the wise use of the environment of Indian country.
6
7 Contents Table of Cases Preface to the Fourth Edition Introduction Themes of Native American Natu ral Resources Law xv xxv xxvii xxvii Chapter 1 Land, Religion, and Culture 3 A. Indians and the Land 3 Frank Pommersheim, The Reservation as Place: A South Dakota Essay 3 Michael C. Blumm, Sacrificing the Salmon: A Legal and Policy History of the Decline of Columbia Basin Salmon 6 Navajo Nation Code, Tit. I, Rebecca Tsosie, Tribal Environmental Policy in an Era of Self- Determination: The Role of Ethics, Economics, and Traditional Ecological Knowledge 8 Ezra Rosser, Ahistorical Indians and Reservation Resources 10 B. Legal Protection of Sacred and Cultural Sites 11 Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association 11 Notes 21 Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Ser vice 22 Notes 34 Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association v. Babbitt [Bear Lodge II] 35 Executive Order Indian Sacred Sites 41 Notes 42 Note on Federal Protection of Cultural Property Under the Antiquities Act: Bears Ears National Monument 43 Note on Cultural Protection Under Other Statutes 44 USDA Forest Ser vice Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Rec ord of Decision for Cave Rock Management Direction Final Environmental Impact Statement 48 Notes 54 Note on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 55 Bonnichsen v. United States 58 Notes 64 vii
8 viii CONTENTS Chapter 2 Some Basics of Federal Indian Law 71 A. History of Federal Indian Policy 71 B. The Cherokee Cases 78 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 80 Worcester v. Georgia 83 Notes 88 C. Tribal Sovereignty 90 Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 90 Notes 92 D. The Federal Role in Indian Country 94 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock 95 Notes 99 Note on Federal Power over Indians 99 Notes on the Trust Doctrine 100 E. Indian Country Scope and Extent of Indian Country 103 Note on Indian Country 103 Oklahoma Tax Comm n v. Sac and Fox Nation 104 Note on the Definition of Reservation 107 Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government 108 Notes 113 Note on Alaskan Subsistence 115 Mustang Production Co. v. Harrison 117 Note on Tribal Courts and Tribal Court Exhaustion 120 Note on Indian Country in Oklahoma Expanding Indian Country 122 Buzzard v. Oklahoma Tax Commission 122 Notes Contracting Indian Country: Reservation Diminishment 129 Solem v. Bartlett 130 Note on the Canons of Construction 138 South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe 138 Notes 146 Nebraska v. Parker 146 Notes 151 Chapter 3 Land: The Fundamental Resource 155 A. Aboriginal Title 155 Johnson and Graham s Lessee v. M Intosh 155 Notes 159 City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation 163 Notes 167 United States ex rel. Hualpai Indians v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co. 170
9 CONTENTS ix Notes 175 Tee- Hit- Ton Indians v. United States 180 Notes 184 Note on the Federal Claims Process 186 B. Recognized Title 188 United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians 188 Notes 191 United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians 192 Notes 205 C. Executive Order Reservations 209 Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States 209 Notes 213 D. Submerged Lands 215 Montana v. United States 215 Notes 219 United States v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 223 Note on Cherokee Claims to the Arkansas River 226 E. Allotted Lands 229 Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hollowbreast 231 Note on Fractionation 235 Babbitt v. Youpee 237 Notes 242 Chapter 4 Land Use and Environmental Protection 247 A. Authority to Control Land Use 247 Worcester v. Georgia 248 Notes 248 Montana v. United States 249 Notes 253 New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe 257 Notes 263 Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation 264 Notes 272 South Dakota v. Bourland 273 Notes 274 Strate v. A-1 Contractors 275 Notes 276 Nevada v. Hicks 276 Notes 279 B. Environmental Protection Environmental Authority in Indian Country 282 Phillips Petroleum Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 282 Notes 283
10 x CONTENTS EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations 284 Notes 285 State of Washington, Department of Ecol ogy v. United States Environmental Protection Agency 286 Notes 291 City of Albuquerque v. Browner 295 Notes 300 Arizona Public Ser vice Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency 304 Notes 311 Backcountry against Dumps v. Environmental Protection Agency 313 Notes 316 Note on Tribal Environmental Law Application of Environmental Laws to Tribes 320 Notes 320 Blue Legs v. United States Bureau of Indian Affairs 322 Notes Environmental Impacts of Development 327 Davis v. Morton 327 Notes 331 Sangre De Cristo Development Co., Inc. v. United States 332 Metcalf v. Daley 335 Notes 342 Note on Environmental Justice 344 An Environmental Justice Case Study: Dakota Access Pipeline 346 Chapter 5 Natu ral Resource Development 349 A. The Federal- Tribal Relationship in Resource Management The Role of the Department of the Interior 350 Reid Peyton Chambers & Monroe E. Price, Regulating Sovereignty: Discretion and the Leasing of Indian Lands 350 Mary Christina Wood, Protecting the Attributes of Native Sovereignty: A New Trust Paradigm for Federal Actions Affecting Tribal Lands and Resources 352 Notes Tribal Resource Development Statutes 356 Note on Resource Development Statutes 356 Note on Renewable Energy Resources Energy Rights-of-Way 363 Blackfeet Indian Tribe v. Montana Power Com pany 363 Notes 366 Nebraska Public Power Dist. v Acres of Land 367 Notes 369 Note on Tribal Regulatory Authority over Rights- of- Way 370
11 CONTENTS xi B. The Breach of Trust Action for Federal Resource Mismanagement 372 Nell Jessup Newton, Enforcing the Federal- Indian Trust Relationship after Mitchell 372 United States v. Navajo Nation 374 United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe 386 Notes 392 Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Supron Energy Corp. 396 Notes 397 C. The Tribal Role in Resource Management 401 Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Andrus 401 Note on the Environmental Effects of Mining 406 United Nuclear Corp. v. United States 407 Notes 412 Quantum Exploration, Inc. v. Clark 414 Notes 418 Chapter 6 Taxation of Natu ral Resources 419 A. Federal Taxation 419 Squire v. Capoeman 419 Notes 421 B. Tribal Taxation 424 Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe 425 Notes 432 Kerr- McGee Corp. v. Navajo Tribe of Indians 432 Notes 435 Atkinson Trading Co., Inc. v. Shirley 435 Notes 438 C. State Taxation 440 Note on State Taxation of Tribal Interests 440 County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation 441 Cass County v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians 445 Notes 448 Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians 449 Notes 452 White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker 453 Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico 458 Notes 463 Chapter 7 Water Rights 471 A. Introduction to Reserved Rights 471 United States v. Winans 471 Winters v. United States 474 Notes 477 Note on State Water Law Systems 479
12 xii CONTENTS B. Extending the Winters Doctrine 481 Arizona v. California 481 Notes 484 C. Scope and Extent of Water Rights Reservation Purposes, Priority Dates, and Quantification 485 Note on Reservation Purposes 485 Note on Methods of Quantification 486 United States v. Adair [Adair I] 487 Notes 493 In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System [Big Horn I] 499 In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source 504 Notes Rights to Groundwater 513 In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System [Big Horn I] 513 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water Dist. 514 Notes Use of Water Rights 521 In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System [Big Horn III] 521 Notes 528 Note on Water Marketing Rights of Allottees and Subsequent Purchasers 530 Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton 530 Notes Right to Water Quality 538 United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation District 538 D. Determination of Water Rights 545 Notes 545 Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton 547 Nevada v. United States 551 Notes 561 Note on the McCarran Amendment and State Water Adjudications 566 Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona 567 Notes 576 Note on Water Settlements 577 Chapter 8 Usufructuary Rights: Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering 585 A. Off- Reservation Rights Modern Survival of the Rights 586
13 CONTENTS xiii Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians 586 Notes 601 Note on the Non- Indian Backlash 603 Public Access Shoreline Hawaii (PASH) v. Hawai i County Planning Commission 606 Notes Defeasible Usufructuary Rights 612 State of Washington v. Buchanan 612 Notes Regulation of Treaty Rights 620 Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington [Puyallup I] 620 Notes 624 Department of Game of the State of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe [Puyallup II] 625 Note on Limiting Treaty Rights on Public Safety Grounds 626 Note on Tribal Hunting and Fishing Regulations 627 Note on On- Reservation versus Off- Reservation Rights Scope and Extent of the Right of Taking Fish 629 United States v. Winans 629 Notes 630 Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association 633 Notes 642 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin [LCO- Timber] Habitat Protection for the Treaty Fishing Right 649 Notes 650 United States v. Washington 654 Notes 656 United States v. Washington 657 Notes 661 B. Loss and Diminishment of the Rights 665 Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States 665 Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe 670 Note on the Restoration of Menominee and Klamath Tribes 677 United States v. Dion 678 Notes 683 Anderson v. Evans 687 Note on Abrogation versus Regulation 693 Chapter 9 International Approaches to Indigenous Lands and Resources 695 A. International Instruments for the Protection of Indigenous Rights 695 Note: U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 695
14 xiv CONTENTS U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 696 Note: ILO Convention No The Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, Note: American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 702 American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 703 B. Indian Claims before International Forums 711 Inter- American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 75/02, Case , Mary and Carrie Dann 712 Note: The Inter- American Human Rights System 717 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedure, Decision 1 (68): United States of Amer i ca 718 Notes 719 Index 721
15 Table of Cases The principal cases are in bold type. Cases cited in principal cases and within other quoted materials are not included. Access Fund v. United States Department of Agriculture, 54 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Water Dist., 514 Alabama-Coushatta Tribe v. United States, 161 Alaska v. Babbitt, 116 Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov t, 104, 108, 185 Alaska ex rel. Yukon Flats School District v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 115 Alaska Wilderness League v. Kempthorne, 343 Alcea Band of Tillamooks v. United States, 214 Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Tribe, 191 Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, 117 Anderson v. Evans, 343, 687, 694 Arizona v. California, 214, 479, 481, , 492, 503, 512, 528, 562, 639, 640 Arizona v. California II, 528 Arizona v. California III, 562 Arizona v. California (Quechan Tribe), Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 567 Arizona Department of Revenue v. Blaze Construction Co., Inc., 469 Arizona Public Service Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 304 Arrow Midstream Holdings v. 3 Bears Construction, 371 Arviso v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 422 Ashley v. United States Department of the Interior, 394 Atiak Native Community v. Environmental Protection Agency, 117 Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 272, 279, 435, 438, 440 Atlantic States Legal Foundation v. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 326 Attorney General v. Ngati Apa, 179 Babbitt v. Youpee, 237, 244 Backcountry Against Dumps v. Environmental Protection Agency, 291, 313, 316, 319 Baley v. United States, 496 Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. v. United States Department of the Interior, 43 Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association v. Babbitt (Bear Lodge I), 40 Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association v. Babbitt (Bear Lodge II), 35, 42, 55 Big Eagle v. United States, 422 Big Horn County Electric Cooperative v. Adams, 276, 438 xv
16 xvi TABLE OF CASES Black Hills Institute of Geological Research v. South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, 192 Blackfeet Indian Tribe v. Montana Power Company, 363 Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 220 Blaze Construction Co. v. Taxation and Revenue Department, 466, 469 Blue Legs v. United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 322, 325, 326 Boarhead Corp. v. Erickson, 47 Bobby v. Alaska, 116 Bonnichsen v. United States, 57, 58, 64 Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 264, 306 Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. United States, 222 Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Blackfeet Tribe, Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Red Wolf, 371 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Co. v. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, 439 Buzzard v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 122 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson, 466 Calder v. Attorney General for British Columbia, 176 Cappaert v. United States, 519 Carcieri v. Norton, 126 Carcieri v. Salazar, 128 Cardin v. De La Cruz, 264 Cass County v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 445, 448, 449 Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki, 168 Cayuga Indian Nation v. Seneca County, 169 Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 332 Central New York Fair Business Ass n v. Jewel, 127 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 73, 80, 101, 159, 255 Cherokee Nation v. State of Oklahoma, 227 Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States (Claims Court), 227, 228 Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States (Federal Circuit), 228 Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States (10th Circuit), 227 Cherokee Tobacco, The, 421, 422 Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma, 122 Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy s Reservation v. United States, 394 Choctaw Nation v Oklahoma, 219, 222, 223, 226 Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 46 Churchill County v. Norton, 547, 564 Citizens for a Better Way v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 331 City of Albuquerque v. Browner, 295, 301 City of Boerne v. Flores, 686 City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 163, 167, 168 City of Roseville v. Norton, 128 Cobell v. Babbitt, 400 Cobell v. Kempthorne, 400 Cobell v. Norton, 400 Cobell v. Salazar, 400 Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, , 577 Colville Confederated Tribes v. Cavenham Forest Industries, 264 Colville Confederated Tribes v. Condon, 320
17 TABLE OF CASES xvii Colville Confederated Tribes v. Everybodytalksabout, 627 Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton, 478, 494, 528, 530, 536, 537, 651 Comanche Nation v. United States, 34 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Clinch, 512 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Namen, 264 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation v. Stultz, 520 Confederated Tribes v. Bonneville Power Administration, 653 Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon v. United States, 129 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. Anderson, 627 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. Hoover, 280 Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon v. Jewell, 129 Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 382, 458 Cougar Den, Inc. v. Washington State Department of Licensing, 468 County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 163 County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 441, 448, 452 Critzer v. United States, 422 Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. Brownlee, 45 Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis, 620 Cutter v. Wilkerson, 34 Cypress v. United States, 424 Davilla v. Enable Midstream Partners L.P., 370 Davis v. Morton, 327, 332, 333, 404, 405 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 176 Department of Game of the State of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe (Puyallup II), 625, 629, 631, 642, 643, 645 Department of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association, 42, 565, 566 Department of the Interior v. South Dakota, 125 Dillon v. United States, 422 Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 280 Duro v. Reina, 255, 256 Earl v. Commissioner, 423 Ellis v. Page, 121 Ellis v. State, 121 Ex Parte Crow Dog, 74 Ex Parte Young, 220, 221 Flathead Joint Board of Control v. United States Department of the Interior, 565 Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. United States, 562 Gila River Indian Community v. Waddell, 466 Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States, 519 Gobin v. Snohomish County, 273 Governing Council of Pinoleville Indian Community v. Mendocino County, 264 Gros Ventre Tribe v. United States, 396 Guerin v. The Queen, 176 Hagen v. Utah, 141, 152, 165 Hodel v. Irving, 235, 237, 238, 241 Holt v. Commissioner, 422 Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Nevins, 465 Hopi Tribe v. United States, 393, 561 Hopi Tribe v. Trump, 44 Housing Authority v. Harjo, 121 Hydro Resources, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 113 Idaho v. Coeur d Alene Tribe, 220 Idaho v. United States, 222, 498
18 xviii TABLE OF CASES In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System (Big Horn I), 486, 499, 512, 513, 536 In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System (Big Horn III), 521 In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System (Big Horn IV), 537 In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System, 504, 519, 563 In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System (Gila River-Groundwater), 519 In re SRBA, 498 In the Matter of Water Use Permit Applications, 611 In the Matter of the Application of Beneficial Water Use Permit Nos L, Ciotti, 512 In re Ninety Mile Beach, 179 In re Yakima River Drainage Basin, 563 Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaPlante, 120, 321 Jackson v. United States, 399 Jamul Action Comm. v. Chaudhuri, 331 Jango v. Northern Territory, 178 Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Andrus, 401 Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Supron Energy Corp., 394, 396 Johnson and Graham s Lessee v. M Intosh, 71, 72, 73, 79, 155, , 169, 171, 176, Joint Board of Control of the Flathead, Mission, and Jocko Irrigation Districts v. United States, 494, 565 Ka Pa Akai O Ka Aina v. Land Use Comm n, 611 Kansas Indians, The, 440 Karuk Tribe of California v. Ammon, 214 Kenaitze Indian Tribe v. Alaska, 116 Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Navajo Tribe of Indians, 432 Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Naftaly, 448 King Mountain Tobacco Comp. Inc. v. McKenna, 467 Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 321 Kittitas Reclamation District v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, 494, 577, 652 Klamath Tribes v. United States Forest Service, 662 Knight v. Shoshone & Arapaho Indian Tribes, 264 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Voigt, 603, 612 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin (LCO II), 620 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin (LCO III), 644 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin (LCO IV), 626, 628 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin (LCO-Timber), 647 Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin, 605 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 76, 95, 99, 132, 198, 200, 204, 242, 669, 679 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 611 Lummi Indian Tribe v. Hallauer, 264 Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass n, 11, 21 22, 42, 46 Mabo v. Queensland, 178 Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell, 94 Madison v. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 116
19 TABLE OF CASES xix Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band v. Patchak, 127 McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona, 106, 440 McDonald v. Means, 276 McDowell v. Alaska, 116 Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 664, 665 Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 425, 432,, 439, 463 Mervyn v. Western Australia, 179 Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 103, 125, 468, 620 Metcalf v. Daley, 335, 694 Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 103, 321 Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 311 Mid States Coalition for Progress v. Surface Transportation Board, 207 Milirrpum v. Nabalco, 178 Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 586, , 610, 612, 620, 684 Mitchel v. United States, 171, 616 Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 449, 452, 463 Montana v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 464 Montana v. United States, 215, 219, 247, 249, 256, 424, 538, 628, 629 Montana v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 308 Muckleshoot v. Hall, 652 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Nation, 646 Murphy v. Royal, 121 Murphy v. Sirmons, 121 Mustang Production Co. v. Harrison, 117, 435 Nance v. Environmental Protection Agency, 291, 315 Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Warwick Sewer Authority, 48 National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 321 National Mining Association v. Slater, 48 Nat l Wildlife Fed n v. Nat l Marine Fisheries Service, 653 Navajo Nation v. Peabody Holding Co., 394 Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, 22 Nebraska v. Parker, 146, 151 Nebraska Public Power Dist. v Acres of Land, 367 Nevada v. Hicks, 78, 276, 279, 321, 438, 439 Nevada v. United States, 551, 662 New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 257, 628, 629 New Mexico ex rel. Reynolds v. Aamodt, 519 New York Indians, The, 167, 440 Nez Perce Tribe v. Idaho Power Company, 662, 663 Ninilchik Traditional Council v. United States, 117 No Oilport! v. Carter, 652 Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hollowbreast, 231 Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. United States Bureau of Land Management, 48 Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association v. Peterson, 22 Northwest Sea Farms v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 652 Oglala Sioux Tribe v. United States, 207 Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Indian Reservation v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 46 Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency, 311 Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Chickasaw Nation, 441
20 xx TABLE OF CASES Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 305 Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac and Fox Nation, 104, 113, Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 78, 209, Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 162, 163 Oneida Indian Nation v. State of New York, 169 Oneida Nation v. Madison County, 168 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 670 Osage Nation v. Irby, 121, 151 Osage Tribal Council v. Department of Labor, 326, 327 Osage Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. United States, 394 Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians v. United States, 399 Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Logan, 160, 602 Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals Ltd., 327 Parravano v. Babbitt, 214 Phillips Petroleum Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 282, 283 Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Watchman, 435 Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co., 280 Public Access Shoreline Hawaii (PASH) v. Hawai i County Planning Commission, 606, 612, 662 Public Service Co. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 327 Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. Approximately Acres of Land, 369, 370 Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. Barboan, 370 Pueblo of Sandia v. United States, 43, 47 Puget Sound Gillnetters v. United States District Court, 632 Puget Sound Gillnetters Association v. Moos, 632 Purse Seine Vessel Owners Association v. Tollefson, 632 Puyallup Indian Tribe v. Port of Tacoma, 220 Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington (Puyallup I), 620, 624, 629, 631, 642 Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of State of Washington (Puyallup III), 628, 629, 631 Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 547, 611, 662 Quantum Exploration, Inc. v. Clark, 414 Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma v. Blue Tee Corp., 318 Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation v. United States Department of the Interior, 48 Quinault Indian Nation v. Grays Harbor County, 448 R. v. Marshall, 177 Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States, 422 Reppun v. Board of Water Supply, 608, 611 Rice v. Rehner, 256 Robinson v. Jewell, 185 San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States, 47 Sangre de Cristo Development Co., Inc. v. United States, 332 Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 321, 416 Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings County, 124 Satiacum, 422, 639 Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Stranburg, 468
21 TABLE OF CASES xxi Seufert Bros. v. United States, 619, 630 Settler v. Lameer, 628 Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians v. Utah, 263 Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation v. United States, 394 Simon v. The Queen, 176 Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 209, 214 Skeem v. United States, 530 Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Mosbarger, 281 Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States, 494, 664 Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 48 Sohappy v. Smith, 632 Solem v. Bartlett, 121, 129, 130, 138, 146, 151 South Dakota v. Bourland, 273, 274, 432, 628 South Dakota v. United States Department of the Interior, 124, 125, 128 South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 138, 146, 151, 152, 153, 602 Sparrow v. R., 176 Squire v. Capoeman, 419, 421, 422, 423 Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng rs, 347, 348 State v. Elliott, 169 State v. Hanapi, 610 State v. Jim, 644 State v. Klindt, 122 State v. Littlechief, 122 State Department of Ecology v. Acquavella, 497 State Engineer v. South Fork Bank of the Te Moak Tribe, 577 State ex. rel Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 536 State ex rel. Martinez v. Kerr-McGee, 497 State ex. rel Martinez v. Lewis, 486 State ex rel. May v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, 122 State of Washington v. Buchanan, 612, 619 Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 275, 276, 281, 321, , Strom v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 423 Superintendent of Five Civilized Tribes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 422 Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 180, 185, 188 Temoak Band of Western Shoshone Indians v. United States, 711 Thompson v. County of Franklin, 448 Tooisgah v. United States, 121 Tsilhot in Nation v. British Columbia, 177 Tulee v. Washington, 631, 642 Tweedy v. Texas Co., 519 Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Runyon, 665 Union Pacific Railroad v. Wasco County, 665 United Nuclear Corp. v. United States, 407 United States v. 43 Gallons of Whiskey, 422 United States v. Abousleman, 478 United States v. Adair (Adair I), 486, 487, , 497, 529, 611 United States v. Adair (Adair II), 495, 496 United States v. Ahtanum Irrigation Dist., 563 United States v. Alaska, 222 United States v. Anderson (taxation), 423 United States v. Anderson (water rights district court), 494, 651 United States v. Anderson (water rights 9th Cir.), 537, 538 United States v. Antoine, 687
22 xxii TABLE OF CASES United States v. Billie, 683 United States v. Braren, 496 United States v. Bresette, 684 United States v. Brown, 685 United States v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, 223 United States v. Clapox, 74 United States v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 646 United States v. Daney, 422 United States v. Dann, 170, 711 United States v. Dion, 103, 214, 497, 678, , 685, United States v. District Court in and for Eagle County, 566 United States v. Friday, 686 United States v. Gerber, 46 United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation District, 538 United States v. Hardman, 686 United States v. Hicks, 618, 620 United States v. Holt State Bank, 216 United States v. Hugs, 686 United States v. Idaho, 222, 498 United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 395 United States v. John, 108 United States v. Kagama, 74, 75, United States v. Lara, 255 United States v. Lummi Nation, 647 United States v. Lummi Tribe, 646 United States v. Mazurie, 428 United States v. McBratney, 248 United States v. Midwest Oil Co., United States v. Mitchell (Mitchell II), 394 United States v. Muckleshoot Tribe, 646 United States v. Navajo Nation, 374, 392 United States v. Navajo Nation (Navajo II), 392, 393 United States v. New Mexico, 485 United States v. Newmont USA Ltd., 326 United States v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 121 United States v. Oliver, 686 United States v. Oregon, 129, 576 United States v. Orr Water Ditch Company, 520, 529, 564, 565 United States v. Osage Wind, LLC, 362 United States v. Ramsey, 122 United States v. Roberts, 126 United States v. Sandoval, 109, United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians, 188, 191, 192 United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 102, 192, 207, , 214 United States v. Tawahongva, 686 United States v. Tohono O Odham Nation, 398 United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist., 565 United States v. Vasquez-Ramos, 687 United States v. Washington (Boldt Decision) (district court), 495, 632, 645, 646, 647 United States v. Washington (Boldt Decision) (9th Circuit), 632 United States v. Washington (Chehalis Tribe), 646 United States v. Washington (disestablishment of Puyallup reservation), 628 United States v. Washington (habitat protection cases), 643, , 654, 657, 661 United States v. Washington (hatchery fish), 642, 644, 645 United States v. Washington (Lummi water rights), 511, 520 United States v. Washington (shellfish), 664 United States v. Washington Department of Ecology, 286 United States v. Webb, 153
23 TABLE OF CASES xxiii United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 386, 393, 394 United States v. Wilgus, 686 United States v. Winans, 76, 219, 471, 477, 478, 494, 498, 612, 629, 630, 642, 643, 663 United States ex rel. Hualpai Indians v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co., 170, 175, 176, 602 Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Washington, 646 Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 152 Ute Mountain Ute Tribe v. Rodriguez, 464 Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Outray Reservation v. Myton, 152 Vieux Carre Prop. Owners, Residents & Assoc., Inc. v. Brown, 47 Wagnon v. Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 467 Ward v. Race Horse, Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 209, 263, 424 Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass n, 495, 626, 633, 642, 643, 644, 647, Washington Department of Ecology v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 286 Washington Department of Ecology v. Yakima Reservation Irrigation District, 497 Western Energy Alliance v. U.S. Dep t of the Interior, 372 Wheeler v. United States, 252, 255 White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 256, 453, 463, , 469 Wik Peoples v. Queensland, 178 Williams v. City of Chicago, 602 Williams v. Lee, 120, 248, 249, 255, 256 Winters v. United States, 76, 471, 474, 477, 478, 479, 480, 485, 496, 546, 611 Wisconsin v. Environmental Protection Agency, 301 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 21 Worcester v. Georgia, 73, 83, 88, 101, 138, 248, 255 Wyoming v. U.S. Dep t of the Interior, 354, 355 Wyoming v. U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, 312 Wyoming v. United States, 486, 499, , 577 Wyoming v. Zinke, 354 Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Gaffey, 153 Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 113, 124, 153 Youngbull v. United States, 188
24
25 Preface to the Fourth Edition We have been quite pleased with the reception of the first three editions of Native American Natu ral Resources Law. It has been especially gratifying to see our efforts encourage the establishment of a new course in the law school curriculum, one which bridges Indian law and natu ral resources and environmental law. Some of our colleagues have been uncommonly enthusiastic about both the casebook and the subject matter. See, e.g., Debra Donahue, A Call for Native American Natu ral Resources in the Law School Curriculum, 24 Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law 211 (2004). In the five years since the third edition, the field of Native American natu ral resources law has continued to expand, and this edition reflects those developments: in legislatures, in the courts, and in the legal commentary. Recent legislation has been particularly impor tant in the energy field. On the federal judicial level, the tension between Congress and the Supreme Court continues: while the Supreme Court has continued its apparent hostility toward tribal sovereignty, tribal governments continue to gain impor tant regulatory roles under federal statutes. And although some state courts have read tribal water rights extremely narrowly, for the most part, tribal property rights continue to gain judicial recognition and protection. We continue to believe that this book is adaptable to either an advanced course in Indian law for students whose principal interest is Indian law, or an advanced natural resources law course for students whose principal interest is in natu ral resources law, or for students whose interest lies in the intersection between the two fields. We have tried to design this book so that students need not have taken either the basic Indian law course or the basic natu ral resources law course to take this course. A word about editing in this edition: in order to increase the book s readability, we have generally eliminated ellipses in our edits of cases and commentary, retaining ellipses only to indicate material that has been edited out within a paragraph. We look forward to continuing to follow developments in this dynamic field for years to come. JRV MCB EKW xxv
26
27 Introduction Native American Natu ral Resources Law is a growing, dynamic, exciting area of the law, involving impor tant environmental and economic resources. Yet it has deep historical roots which are inextricably linked to the nation s ethical and legal obligations to the continent s first peoples. The field includes transcendent issues, such as compensation for or restoration of lost resources, as well as pragmatic concerns, such as the ability to site or maintain major facilities, the allocation of water supplies, and pollution control. In a larger sense, the study of Native American Natu ral Resource Law is a worthy endeavor because, as Felix Cohen noted, it serves as a reflection of the dominant society s tolerance for diversity. Moreover, by providing new laboratories to test novel management approaches, the dominant society may learn valuable natu ral resources lessons for the future. Themes of Native American Natu ral Resources Law There are several enduring themes in this text. We believe the material is better understood if the following points are introduced at the outset: 1) Most of the core conflicts in this field are jurisdictional: conflicts over which government has sovereign control over which resources. 2) What you learned in high school civics class that the United States has a federal system of government with dual sovereigns, the states and the federal government is not true. Tribal governments are an impor tant third source of sovereignty that play an increasingly impor tant role in natu ral resources allocation. 3) A critical distinction, one not always recognized in the case law, concerns the difference between questions of sovereignty which government has authority to control natu ral resource allocation and questions of property, that is, owner ship of resources. 4) Large variations in the history of Native American policy continue to influence natu ral resources allocation today. In par tic u lar, the legacy of the allotment era ( ), when tribes lost more than sixty percent of their land base in a purported effort to assimilate the tribes into the mainstream of American life, looms large. xxvii
28 xxviii Introduction 5) The historical rec ord reveals that, although the federal Congress and Executive have trust responsibilities to protect tribal lands and resources, they have not always been able to fulfill those responsibilities without assistance from the federal courts. 6) Ironically, however, some of the most innovative aspects of Native American Natu ral Resources Law in recent years have come from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, when Congress has authorized treatment of tribes as states for pollution control purposes. These initiatives come at a time when the United States Supreme Court has frequently treated tribal claims of inherent sovereignty with hostility. 7) Perhaps the chief characteristic of this field of law is its relative lack of universal princi ples that apply to all situations. The great diversity in Indian Country in terms of distinct treaties, statutes, executive orders, and histories what Charles Wilkinson has called the scattering forces in Indian Country makes case- by- case adjudication the norm and generic statements hazardous.
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
1986 1 Iowa Mutual v. Laplante, 480 U.S. 9 (1987). 2 California v. Cabazon Band, 480 U.S. 202 (1987). 3 Amoco Prod. Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987). 4 United States v. Cherokee Nation, 480 U.S. 700
More informationX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
1986 Scalia Begins 1 Iowa Mutual v. Laplante, 480 U.S. 9 (1987). 2 California v. Cabazon Band, 480 U.S. 202 (1987). 3 Amoco Prod. Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987). 4 United States v. Cherokee Nation,
More informationNative American Natural Resources Law
Native American Natural Resources Law Carolina Academic Press Law Casebook Series Advisory Board Gary J. Simson, Chairman Cornell Law School Raj K. Bhala The George Washington University Law School John
More informationFunds Provided to American Indians/Alaska Natives that are Excluded by Law
Funds Provided to American Indians/Alaska Natives that are Excluded by Law Public Law Statute/U.S. Code Description of Funds 70 Stat 581 Receipts from land held in trust by the Federal government and distributed
More informationThe Supreme Court s last 30 years of Federal Indian Law: Looking for Equilibrium or Supremacy?
The Supreme Court s last 30 years of Federal Indian Law: Looking for Equilibrium or Supremacy? Alex Tallchief Skibine * Since 1831, Indian tribes have been viewed as Domestic Dependent Nations located
More informationPamela Williams, Director Secretary s Indian Water Rights Office. WSWC Spring Meeting March 21, 2019 Chandler, AZ
Pamela Williams, Director Secretary s Indian Water Rights Office WSWC Spring Meeting March 21, 2019 Chandler, AZ Settlement Era Begins For almost 4 decades, tribes, states, local parties, and the Federal
More informationNative American House Reports 70th Congress (1927) 95th Congress (1978)
Native American House Reports 70th Congress (1927) 95th Congress (1978) Materials with an asterisk (*) are available in the Government Documents area in the basement of the library Y 1.2 Rp:C.70, S.1/V.1/No.
More informationHouse Reports 70th Congress (1927) 95th Congress (1978)
House Reports 70th Congress (1927) 95th Congress (1978) Materials with an asterisk (*) are available in the Government Documents area in the basement of the library Y 1.2 Rp:C 70, S.1/V.1/1-584 House Reports
More informationFinding Aid to the Indian Claims Commission Records MS No online items
http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8v69m3j No online items Finding aid prepared by Anna Liza Posas Autry National Center, Braun Research Library 234 Museum Drive Los Angeles, CA, 90065-5030 323-221-2164
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 05-353 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States PEABODY WESTERN COAL COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
More informationRobert T. Anderson, Professor, University of Washington School of Law Seattle, WA. April 2018
Robert T. Anderson, Professor, University of Washington School of Law Seattle, WA April 2018 Overview Indian property rights rooted in federal law, including aboriginal title as recognized in U.S. Deep
More informationSenate Reports 70th Congress (1927) 95th Congress (1978)
Senate Reports 70th Congress (1927) 95th Congress (1978) Y 1.3 Rp:C 70, S.1/1-514 Senate Reports on Public Bills, Etc. I 70 th Congress, 1 st Session, December 5, 1927 May 29, 1928 No. 5 Fixing the commencement
More information2013 Federal Docs Offers List #1 from Missouri Southern State University
1 Missouri Southern State University Spiva Library Joplin, Missouri 0330C-13-01 2013 Federal Docs Offers List #1 from Missouri Southern State University Please contact Hong Li (Li-h@mssu.edu) by July 10
More informationIndigenous Governance Law Law B584 A, B, C - 4 Credits Fall T and TH 3:30-5:20 PM William H. Gates Hall Room 118
Indigenous Governance Law Law B584 A, B, C - 4 Credits Fall 2018 Professor Eric D. Eberhard, JD, LL.M Phone: 206:890-5363 Email: ee23@uw.edu Office Location: William H. Gates Hall, Room 326 Office Hours:
More informationFederal Disbursements for Indian Title in the Louisiana Territory,
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons The Magazine of Early American Datasets (MEAD) McNeil Center for Early American Studies (MCEAS) 1-2017 Federal Disbursements for Indian Title in the Louisiana
More informationThe Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20500
The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Obama: Re: Pending Indian Health Service Cases for Breach
More informationNative American Senate Documents 60th Congress (1908) 94th Congress (1975)
Native American Senate Documents 60th Congress (1908) 94th Congress (1975) Materials with an asterisk (*) are available in the Government Documents area in the basement of the library Y 1.3 D:C 60, S.2/V.21
More informationSteven C. Moore. » Experience. Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, CO Senior Staff Attorney, 1983 present
Steven C. Moore» Experience Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, CO Senior Staff Attorney, 1983 present Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Montana Contract Attorney, 1981 1983 Indian Law Unit,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) and ) ) CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, ) ) Intervenor-Plaintiff ) Case No. 1:16-cv-1534-JEB )
More informationJails in Indian Country, 2013
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Jails in Indian Country, 2013 Todd D. Minton, BJS Statistician A total of 2,287 inmates were confined in 79 Indian country
More informationTribal Nations United States Relations: Policy Eras and Future Developments
Tribal Nations United States Relations: Policy Eras and Future Developments Angelique Townsend EagleWoman (Wambdi A. WasteWin) James E. Rogers Fellow in American Indian Law Associate Professor of Law University
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. BILLY JO LARA, Respondent.
No. 03-107 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. BILLY JO LARA, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
More informationNative American Natural Resources Law Cases and Materials Third Edition
Native American Natural Resources Law Cases and Materials Third Edition 2015-16 Teacher s Update Judith V. Royster Professor of Law Co-Director, Native American Law Center University of Tulsa College of
More informationNo Oral Argument Requested IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Appellate Case: 16-2050 Document: 01019699006 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 1 No. 16-2050 Oral Argument Requested IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 17-1159 and 17-1164 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE, ET AL., v. WYOMING, ET AL., Petitioners, Respondents.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN PLAINTIFF S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANTS JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 1:17-cv-01083-JTN-ESC ECF No. 31 filed 05/04/18 PageID.364 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN JOY SPURR Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:17-cv-01083 Hon. Janet
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF NEBRASKA, et al.
No. 14-1406 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF NEBRASKA,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 12-17780 07/17/2013 ID: 8708353 DktEntry: 30 Page: 1 of 96 No. 12-17780 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1320 In the Supreme Court of the United States UPSTATE CITIZENS FOR EQUALITY, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
More informationWhy Treaties Matter: Sovereignty and Existence
Why Treaties Matter: Sovereignty and Existence Terry L. Janis Indian Land Tenure Foundation Returning Indian Lands to Indian People Our Mission Land within the original boundaries of every reservation
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1999) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 97 1337 MINNESOTA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationTribes, Treaties, and Time: Will the Indian Peace Commission Ride Again?
Tribes, Treaties, and Time: Will the Indian Peace Commission Ride Again? Monte Mills Alexander Blewett III School of Law ~ University of Montana 15 th Annual ILPC/TICA Indigenous Law Conference November
More informationNatural Resources Journal
Natural Resources Journal 32 Nat Resources J. 1 (Historical Analysis and Water Resources Development) Winter 1992 Tribes v. States: Zoning Indian Reservations J. Bart Wright Recommended Citation J. B.
More informationCalifornia Indian Law Association 16 th Annual Indian Law Conference October 13-14, 2016 Viejas Casino and Resort
California Indian Law Association 16 th Annual Indian Law Conference October 13-14, 2016 Viejas Casino and Resort Update on California Indian Law Litigation Seth Davis, Assistant Professor of Law, UCI
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort, An Enterprise of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Respondent, and Case No. 07-CA-053586
More informationCase3:12-cv CRB Document32-1 Filed06/22/12 Page1 of 10
Case:-cv-00-CRB Document- Filed0// Page of 0 0 0 STUART F. DELERY Acting Assistant Attorney General JOHN R. GRIFFITHS Assistant Branch Director JAMES D. TODD, JR. Senior Counsel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
More informationCase 4:14-cv BLW Document 72 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 38
Case 4:14-cv-00489-BLW Document 72 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 38 Ralph H. Palumbo, WSB No. 04751 David M. Heineck, WSB No. 09285 Maureen L. Mitchell, ISB No. 8832 SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 315 Fifth Avenue South,
More informationTRIBAL SUPREME COURT PROJECT MEMORANDUM
TRIBAL SUPREME COURT PROJECT MEMORANDUM JANUARY 15, 2016 UPDATE OF RECENT CASES The Tribal Supreme Court Project is part of the Tribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative and is staffed by the National Congress
More informationFederal Treaty and Trust Obligations, and Ocean Acidification
University of Washington School of Law UW Law Digital Commons Articles Faculty Publications 2016 Federal Treaty and Trust Obligations, and Ocean Acidification Robert T. Anderson University of Washington
More informationNo. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
18-970 No. FILED JAN 2 3 2019 OFFICE OF TH r~ SUPREME r {q~;:;:~ ~;- ~ ";, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES THOMAS MITCHELL AND PATRICIA S. JOHANSON MITCHELL, husband and wife, AND BUCKLEY EVANS
More informationDear Tribal Leaders, Together, we can effect real change in Indian Country, and, as always, it is an honor to be a part of that effort.
From: Cory L. Hitchcock [mailto:cory@sonosky.net] On Behalf Of Lloyd B. Miller Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:24 AM Subject: RE: NTCSC and CBCA Coalitions: FINAL Letters to Senate Appropriations
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 11-0274 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner, v. THOMAS CAPTAIN, Respondents and cross-petitioner ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BRIEF FOR
More informationOil and Water in the Indian Country
University of Tulsa College of Law TU Law Digital Commons Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works 1997 Oil and Water in the Indian Country Judith Royster Follow this and
More informationIN WATER WHEEL, THE NINTH CIRCUIT CORRECTS A LIMITATION ON TRIBAL COURT JURISDICTION
IN WATER WHEEL, THE NINTH CIRCUIT CORRECTS A LIMITATION ON TRIBAL COURT JURISDICTION Blair M. Rinne* Abstract: On June 10, 2011, in Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance, the U.S. Court of
More informationTribal Lands and Environment: A National Forum on Solid Waste, Emergency Response, Contaminated Sites and Underground Storage Tanks
Tribal Lands and Environment: A National Forum on Solid Waste, Emergency Response, Contaminated Sites and Underground Storage Tanks August 20-23, 2012 Mill Casino and Hotel Coquille Indian Tribe 1 Where
More informationNo The Supreme Court of the United States. State of Oregon, Petitioner. Thomas Captain, Respondent and cross-petitioner
No. 11-0274 The Supreme Court of the United States State of Oregon, Petitioner v. Thomas Captain, Respondent and cross-petitioner On Appeal From the Oregon Court of Appeals Brief for Petitioner Team No.
More informationCopyright 2010 by Washington Law Review Association
Copyright 2010 by Washington Law Review Association DISTINGUISHING CARCIERI v. SALAZAR: WHY THE SUPREME COURT GOT IT WRONG AND HOW CONGRESS AND COURTS SHOULD RESPOND TO PRESERVE TRIBAL AND FEDERAL INTERESTS
More informationScott Bulgrin, Pueblo of Sandia
Storm Water and General Construction Permit (GCP) and Tribal Authority to Control Pollutants at the Source Scott Bulgrin, Pueblo of Sandia Pueblo of Sandia Mission Statement The mission of the Pueblo of
More informationTRIBAL SELF-DETERMINATION AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT: THE PROBLEM OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS WITHIN THE RESERVATION
TRIBAL SELF-DETERMINATION AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT: THE PROBLEM OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS WITHIN THE RESERVATION 2008 Kaighn Smith Jr. 2008 MICH. ST. L. REV. 505 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...506
More informationUpdate on Tribal Supreme Court Project and Fee-To- Trust Regulations January 23, 2018
Update on Tribal Supreme Court Project and Fee-To- Trust Regulations January 23, 2018 1 OCTOBER 2017 TERM First full term of Justice Neil Gorsuch Court already has many significant cases on its docket
More informationCase 3:08-cv RBL Document 90 Filed 05/08/2008 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Case :0-cv-00-RBL Document 0 Filed 0/0/0 Page of HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 0 NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Plaintiff, CHRISTINE GREGOIRE,
More informationCase 6:83-cv MV-JHR Document 4383 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 6:83-cv-01041-MV-JHR Document 4383 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, on its own behalf and on behalf of the PUEBLOS
More informationIndian Trust Responsibility: Protecting Tribal Lands and resources through Claims of Injunctive Relief against Federal Agencies
Tulsa Law Review Volume 39 Issue 2 The Indian Trust Doctrine After the 2002-2003 Supreme Court Term Article 5 Winter 2003 Indian Trust Responsibility: Protecting Tribal Lands and resources through Claims
More informationTRIBAL SUPREME COURT PROJECT MEMORANDUM
TRIBAL SUPREME COURT PROJECT MEMORANDUM DECEMBER 16, 2011 UPDATE OF RECENT CASES The Tribal Supreme Court Project is part of the Tribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative and is staffed by the National
More informationRegulatory Jurisdiction on Indian Reservations in Montana
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 5 Regulatory Jurisdiction on Indian Reservations in Montana Mickale Carter Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr Recommended
More informationWyoming s Big Horn River Adjudication
Wyoming s Big Horn River Adjudication Ramsey L. Kropf Aspen, Colorado Arizona Colorado Oklahoma Texas Wyoming Wyoming s Big Horn River Adjudication 1977-2007 In Re The General Adjudication of All Rights
More informationResolutions Committee Recommendation Resolution #: MKE Title: Protecting Chippewa lands and resources from the threats posed by PolyMet Mine
N A T I O N A L C O N G R E S S O F A M E R I C A N I N D I A N S Resolutions Committee Recommendation Resolution #: MKE-17-007 Title: Protecting Chippewa lands and resources from the threats posed by
More informationLEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY UPDATE MARCH 2006 DECEMBER Bryan T. Newland Michigan State University College of Law Class of 2007
I. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY UPDATE MARCH 2006 DECEMBER 2006 Bryan T. Newland Michigan State University College of Law Class of 2007 Technical Amendment to Alaska Native Claims Settlement
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
Nos. 17-1159 & 17-1164 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NORTHERN
More informationCase 1:08-cv EJL Document 12 Filed 04/06/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Case 1:08-cv-00396-EJL Document 12 Filed 04/06/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO STATE OF IDAHO by and through LAWRENCE G. WASDEN, Attorney General; and the IDAHO STATE TAX
More informationCASE 0:13-cr JRT-LIB Document 46 Filed 09/03/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:13-cr-00072-JRT-LIB Document 46 Filed 09/03/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. Plaintiff, ) ) LARRY GOOD, ) ) Defendant. ) Criminal
More informationTRIBAL SUPREME COURT PROJECT MEMORANDUM
TRIBAL SUPREME COURT PROJECT MEMORANDUM NOVEMBER 30, 2017 UPDATE OF RECENT CASES The Tribal Supreme Court Project is part of the Tribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative and is staffed by the National
More informationIn The Poarch Band of Creek Indians Tribal Supreme Court
In The Poarch Band of Creek Indians Tribal Supreme Court EARNEST RAY WHITE, Appellant, v. Case No. SC-10-02 POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS, et al., Appellee, Appeal from Poarch Creek Indians Tribal Court
More informationApplication of the ADEA to Indian Tribes: EEOC v. Fond du Lac Heavy Equipment & Construction Co., 986 F.2d 246 (1993)
Urban Law Annual ; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law Volume 46 A Symposium on Health Care Reform Perspectives in the 1990s January 1994 Application of the ADEA to Indian Tribes: EEOC v. Fond du Lac
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. MADISON COUNTY and ONEIDA COUNTY, NEW YORK, v. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK,
No. 12-604 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MADISON COUNTY and ONEIDA COUNTY, NEW YORK, v. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY, BAND OF MOHICAN INDIANS, Petitioners,
More informationJudicial Termination of Treaty Water Rights: The Snake River Case
University of Tulsa College of Law TU Law Digital Commons Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works 2000 Judicial Termination of Treaty Water Rights: The Snake River Case Judith
More informationJustice Rehnquist s Theory of Indian Law: The Evolution from Mazurie to Atkinson Where Did He Leave the Court? Brenna Willott 1
Justice Rehnquist s Theory of Indian Law: The Evolution from Mazurie to Atkinson Where Did He Leave the Court? Brenna Willott 1 I am convinced that a well-defined body of principles is essential in order
More informationCase 1:16-cv JAP-KK Document 42 Filed 10/17/17 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:16-cv-01093-JAP-KK Document 42 Filed 10/17/17 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO AMERIND RISK MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a federally chartered Section 17 Tribal Corporation,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No K2 AMERICA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Case: 10-35455 06/17/2011 Page: 1 of 21 ID: 7790347 DktEntry: 37 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 10-35455 K2 AMERICA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROLAND OIL & GAS, LLC
More informationCase 1:05-cv TLL-CEB Document 150 Filed 01/30/2009 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-10296-TLL-CEB Document 150 Filed 01/30/2009 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, and
More informationCountries Of The World: The United States
Countries Of The World: The United States By National Geographic Kids, adapted by Newsela staff on 06.26.18 Word Count 859 Level MAX Image 1: U.S. Route 101 in Oregon. This highway runs along the entire
More informationA History and Description of the Model Tribal Secured Transactions Act Project by William H. Henning
A History and Description of the Model Tribal Secured Transactions Act Project by William H. Henning A. A brief history and status report. There are over 500 federally recognized Indian tribes and nations
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 534 U. S. (2001) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 00 507 CHICKASAW NATION, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
More informationJuris Doctor: Northwestern School of Law, Chicago, Illinois.
1522 Roxbury Road Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 alexander.skibine@law.utah.edu (H): (801) 582-1406 (W): (801) 581-4177 (Cell): (801) 668-4686 EDUCATION: ALEX TALLCHIEF SKIBINE Juris Doctor: Northwestern School
More informationBulletin. Jails in Indian Country, Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin Jails in Indian Country, 2007 By Todd D. Minton BJS Statistician At midyear 2007, 2,163 inmates were confined
More informationNo In the Supreme Court of the United States. STATE OF WYOMING, Respondent.
No. 17-532 In the Supreme Court of the United States CLAYVIN B. HERRERA, v. Petitioner, STATE OF WYOMING, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the District Court of Wyoming, Sheridan County BRIEF OF AMICI
More informationFederal Indian Policy
Federal Indian Policy BENNETT, ELMER: Papers, 1953-61 Box 1 Briefing Book-Current Issues (1) (4)-(6) Box 2 Chronological File of Correspondence (Misc.) June 4-December 17, 1959 (3) Box 3 Chronological
More informationCase 1:12-cv GZS Document Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: Civ. Action No. 1:12-cv GZS
Case 1:12-cv-00254-GZS Document 131-1 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 7630 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE PENOBSCOT NATION Plaintiff, Civ. Action No. 1:12-cv-00254-GZS UNITED STATES
More informationENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY: WORKING WITHIN THE REALM OF INDIAN LAW AND MOVING
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY: WORKING WITHIN THE REALM OF INDIAN LAW AND MOVING TOWARDS COLLABORATION 1 Heather J. Tanana & John C. Ruple * I. INTRODUCTION American Indian tribes are uniquely poised
More informationMEMORANDUM. Senator Debby Barrett, President of the Senate Representative Austin Knudsen, Speaker of the House
MEMORANDUM To: From: Senator Debby Barrett, President of the Senate Representative Austin Knudsen, Speaker of the House Richard A. Simms, Attorney for Montana Land and Water Alliance Re: Threat of 10,000
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 96 1037 KIOWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, PETITIONER v. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA,
More information104 FERC 61,108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. 18 CFR Part 2. (Docket No. PL ; Order No.
104 FERC 61,108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 18 CFR Part 2 (Docket No. PL03-4-000; Order No. 635) Policy Statement on Consultation with Indian Tribes in Commission Proceedings
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 04-1155 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, et al., Defendants-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District
More informationTRIBAL SUPREME COURT PROJECT MEMORANDUM
TRIBAL SUPREME COURT PROJECT MEMORANDUM AUGUST 24, 2010 UPDATE OF RECENT CASES The Tribal Supreme Court Project is part of the Tribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative and is staffed by the National Congress
More informationFLEEING EAST FROM INDIAN COUNTRY: STATE V. ERIKSEN AND TRIBAL INHERENT SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL FRESH PURSUIT
FLEEING EAST FROM INDIAN COUNTRY: STATE V. ERIKSEN AND TRIBAL INHERENT SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL FRESH PURSUIT Kevin Naud, Jr. Abstract: In State v. Eriksen, the Washington State
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 11-0274 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF OREGON, PETITIONER v. THOMAS CAPTAIN. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER TEAM #10 TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationIn the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
14-1549 In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Fort Yates Public School District #4, ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) vs. ) ) Jamie Murphy for C.M.B. (a minor) ) and Standing Rock Sioux
More informationCarpenter v. Murphy. KU Tribal Law & Government Conference: The U.S. Supreme Court and the Future of Federal Indian Law
KU Tribal Law & Government Conference: The U.S. Supreme Court and the Future of Federal Indian Law Carpenter v. Murphy Professor Bethany Berger UCONN Law Professor Colette Routel Mitchell Hamline Law Federal
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 03-107 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES, v. Petitioner, BILLY JO LARA, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR
More informationEnacting and Enforcing Tribal Law to Protect and Restore Natural Resources Part 1: Tribal Law and How it Works RICHARD A. DU BEY
Enacting and Enforcing Tribal Law to Protect and Restore Natural Resources Part 1: Tribal Law and How it Works RICHARD A. DU BEY KEY QUESTIONS 1. What are the sources of Tribal legal authority? 2. What
More informationCANONS OF CONSTRUCTION, STARE DECISIS AND DEPENDENT INDIAN COMMUNITIES: A TEST OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY
CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION, STARE DECISIS AND DEPENDENT INDIAN COMMUNITIES: A TEST OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY DAVID M. BLURTON \ This Article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court s failure to incorporate the Federal
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:16-cv-00422-JRT-LIB Document 15 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Crystal Tiessen, v. Plaintiff, Chrysler Capital, Repossessors, Inc., PAR North America,
More informationTHE McCARRAN AMENDMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF TRIBAL RESERVED WATER RIGHTS
THE McCARRAN AMENDMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF TRIBAL RESERVED WATER RIGHTS JAY F. STEIN SIMMS & STEIN, P.A. SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO INTRODUCTION This paper surveys developing issues in the administration
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 07-1410 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- UNITED STATES
More informationCriminal Jurisdiction, Tribal Courts and Public Defenders
Criminal Jurisdiction, Tribal Courts and Public Defenders Robert T. Anderson 1 The impetus for this presentation is the establishment of the Tribal Court Criminal Defense Clinic by the University of Washington
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 09-17349 06/10/2011 Page: 1 of 31 ID: 7780860 DktEntry: 68-1 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WATER WHEEL CAMP RECREATIONAL AREA, INC. and ROBERT JOHNSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationNational Business Institute June 23, 2010 Teleconference. Jurisdiction on Tribal Lands
National Business Institute June 23, 2010 Teleconference Jurisdiction on Tribal Lands Brian L. Pierson Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. 780 N. Water St. Milwaukee, WI 53202 414 287 9456 bpierson@gklaw.com I. HISTORY
More informationSTATE OF OREGON, Petitioner,
No. 11-0274 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner, v. THOMAS CAPTAIN. Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Oregon Court of Appeals BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT TEAM 17 1 TABLE
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-515 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF MICHIGAN, PETITIONER v. BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 17-40 and 17-42 In the Supreme Court of the United States COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS, ET AL. DESERT WATER AGENCY, ET AL., PETITIONERS
More information