Kansas Secretary of State Held in Contempt for Failure to Comply with Federal Court’s Voter ID Ruling
Here is the opinion. The court’s syllabus:
Action challenging the issuance of Clean Water Act permits allowing a farm owner to dredge and fill portions of Enemy Swim Lake in furtherance of the owner’s activities in building a road over an inlet of the lake; a 2010 letter from the Corps was not a final agency action for purposes of the permit and exemptions determinations as the letter did not affect the legal rights of the farm owner, the Tribe or the Corps; Tribe’s recapture claim under 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1344(f)(2) was a nonjusticiable enforcement action; Tribe’s claims arising from the Corps’s permit and exemption determinations made from 1998 to 2003 were barred by the statute of limitations and the Tribe was not eligible for equitable tolling because it had not diligently pursued its rights; dismissal of the Tribe’s arbitrary-and-capricious challenge to the Corps’s 2009 permit decision rejected as the Corps did not violate its own regulations in issuing the 2009 nationwide-permit determination; the district court did not make a final decision with respect to the lawfulness of the Corps’s regulations enacted pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, and the court lacked jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the regulations.
Here is the complaint in Crow Creek Tribe of South Dakota v. FCC (D.S.D.):
Federal Court Dismisses U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 17-02 [Muckleshoot Request for U&A Determination in Puget Sound Saltwater]
Here are the materials in Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Tulalip Tribes (W.D. Wash.):
Here are the materials in Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Zinke (D.N.M.):
Here are the briefs in Enable Oklahoma Intrastate Transmission LLC v. A 25 Foot Wide Easement:
Kristen A. Carpenter and Angela R. Riley have posted their fascinating article, “Privatizing the Reservation?“, on SSRN. The article is forthcoming in the Stanford Law Review. Here is the abstract:
The problems of American Indian poverty and reservation living conditions have inspired various explanations. One account advanced by certain economists and commentators is now animating the Trump administration’s apparent desire to ‘privatize’ Indian lands, namely that reservation poverty is rooted in the federal Indian trust arrangement, which preserves the tribal land base by limiting the marketability of lands within reservations. Policy makers are advocating for measures that would promote the individuation and alienability of tribal lands, while diminishing federal and tribal oversight, toward wealth maximization. Taking a different view, this Article complicates and challenges the narrative of Indian poverty and land tenure advanced by advocates for privatization. We focus on real estate and housing in Indian Country to make three points. First, we argue the salience of American Indian homelands as places of collective religious significance, socio-economic sustenance, and territorial governance has been lost in the privatization debate, which also largely disregards issues of remedial justice associated with conquest and colonization. Second, we introduce to the legal literature new empirical data and economic analysis demonstrating that the current system of land tenure in Indian Country is much more varied, and recent innovations in federal-tribal housing and finance programs are more promising, than some of the calls for privatization would suggest. Finally, using specific examples from Indian Country, we highlight a model of indigenous self-determination and sustainability, rooted in the international human rights movement, that deserves attention in ongoing domestic policy debates with the potential to advance the well-being of humanity more broadly.