1 / 16

Using TCP Recognition to Enhance Legal Advocacy & Litigation Strategy

Using TCP Recognition to Enhance Legal Advocacy & Litigation Strategy. Will Cook & Brian Turner | August 9, 2017.

maida
Télécharger la présentation

Using TCP Recognition to Enhance Legal Advocacy & Litigation Strategy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using TCP Recognition to Enhance Legal Advocacy & Litigation Strategy Will Cook & Brian Turner | August 9, 2017

  2. “traditional cultural property” is a historic places that reflect the ongoing practices of living communities, and which include the “traditions, beliefs, practices, lifeways, arts, crafts, and social institutions of any community.” Nat. Reg. Bulletin 38 (NPS 1990, rev. 1998) “Property of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization may be determined to be eligible…” 54 USCS § 302706

  3. Foundational Court Decisions regarding Tribal Consultation Pueblo of Sandia v. United States 50 F.3d 856 (10th Cir. 1995) (Las Huertes Canyon) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service 177 F. 3d 800 (9th Cir. 1999) (Huckleberry Divide Trail) Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service 469 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2006) (Medicine Lake Caldera)

  4. Quechan Tribe v. DOI755 F.Supp. 2d 1104 (S.D.Cal. 2010) “The consultation requirement is not an empty formality” Congress and the DOI “could have made these consulting requirements less stringent, but they didn’t.”

  5. Evolving Standards in U.S. and Abroad • Memorandum of April 29, 1994: Government-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments,“ 59 Fed. Reg. 22,951 (William J. Clinton) • Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments” 65 Fed.Reg. 67,249 (Nov. 9, 2000). • Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2003) • Memorandum of November 5, 2009—Tribal Consultation, 74 Fed. Reg. 57,881 (Barack Obama)

  6. First Amendment Challenges Lyng v. NW Indian Cemetery Protective Assn– Tribes cannot use Free Exercise clause to challenge project • Resource at issue Helkau Historic District • important to Yurok, Hoopa, Karuk Recreation cases – Industry can’t use Establishment clause to challenge agency bans on climbing to protect TCPs -- Devils Tower important to N. Plains Tribes -- Cave Rock important to Washoe -- Rainbow Bridge tourism -- Woodruff Butte – Hopi/Zuni

  7. Mt. Taylor

  8. The Dugong

  9. Nantucket Sound TCP

  10. Native Hawaiian Burials

  11. Red ButteHavasupai Tribe v. Provencio, No. 15-15754 (9th Cir.) argued Dec 15, 2016 appeal from Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams, 98 F.Supp.3d 1044 (D.AZ)(April, 2015)

  12. Recent Legal TCP “Wins” • Slockkish v. Fed. Hwy. Admin. • Hopi Tribe v. City of Flagstaff • Hall v. Dep’t of Land & Natural Resources

  13. Trends • Rise in public interest following DAPL – attention on agencies • Some places development pressures make tribes stay in it for the long haul • Anticipated rise in development pressures, especially on public lands with mining interests • Increased emphasis on obtaining formal DOEs for TCPs as a way to enhance legal protections

  14. Questions? • Will Cook, Associate General Counsel • wcook@savingplaces.org • Brian Turner, • bturner@savingplaces.org

More Related