Canadian company TransCanada Corporationapplied to the United States government forapproval to build the Keystone XL pipeline in2008 and 2012. Both times the application wasreviewed and denied. At the invitation ofPresident Trump, the company resubmitted itsapplication in January 2017 and, two monthslater, the application was approved.

Snaking its way from Alberta, Canada, toNebraska, the proposed Keystone XL pipelinewould cross the US-Canada border in PhilipsCounty, Montana, adjacent to the Fort BelknapIndian Reservation (home of the Assiniboine(Nakoda) and Gros Ventre (Aaniiih) Tribes). Itwould pass close to the Tribal Council buildings ofthe Fort Belknap Indian Reservation and directlythrough the ancestral lands of the Aaniih andNakoda. Countless historical, cultural, sacred,and burial sites sit in the planned path of thepipeline. These sites—which still are used by trib-al members for cultural and spiritual activities—are at risk of destruction both by the pipeline’sconstruction and by the inevitable ruptures andspills if the pipeline becomes operational.

Further down the line, in South Dakota, thepipeline would cross through the Great SiouxNation, just miles from the boundaries of theRosebud Indian Reservation (home of theSicangu Lakota Oyate) and within yards ofRosebud’s trust lands and tribal members’ allot-ments. Rosebud citizens and their land would bewell within the area of impact for even a smallrupture and spill. Nearby, the Rosebud SiouxTribe (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) operates its waterdelivery system as part of the Mni Wiconi RuralWater Supply Project. The pipeline would crossboth sources of water for the Mni Wiconi Project.

Despite all of these facts, and despite what isrequired by law, neither the Fort Belknap IndianCommunity nor the Rosebud Sioux Tribe wasconsulted or adequately considered in the USDepartment of State’s 2017 decision-makingprocess to permit the Keystone XL pipeline. InSeptember 2018, the Native American RightsFund with co-counsel Daniel Belcourt of BelcourtLaw P.C. and David Bell of Geiszler Steele, PC, onbehalf of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the FortBelknap Indian Community, sued to revoke thepermit for this pipeline threatens their tribalnations, rights, and citizens.

VOLUME 43, NO. 2 SUMMER/FALL 2018

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

Tribes Sue to Stop Keystone XL Pipeline

Tribes Sue to Stop Keystone XL Pipeline.......................................................................... page 1

Case Updates .......................................... page 5

National Indian Law Library .................. page 9

Call to Action ........................................ page 10

NARF .................................................... page 11

NARF Board .......................................... page 12

Fort Belknap Indian Reservation

A Tradition of Protecting the Land, Water, Air,and People

To the Oceti Sakowin and the Rosebud SiouxTribe, staying true to the teachings of ourancestors has been the key to surviving 500plus years of genocide. We will not turn ourback on those teachings. I stand with previousPresidents of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe when Isay the Sicangu people, indeed all of the seventribes that make up the Oceti Sakowin (theCouncil First of the Lakota People), have aninherent obligation to protect the health andwellbeing of our members as well as thehealth and welfare of Unci Maka (motherearth). The land, the water, the air, and theLakota people are one in the same. They areand always have been relatives to one another.Our position on this issue has not changed.We opposed the construction of this pipelinein 2014 when TransCanada first announcedits intentions to construct the pipeline, andwe oppose it now in 2018.– Rosebud Sioux Tribe President Bordeaux

To many Native American communities, protect-ing the land, the water, and the air is a sharedvalue. Native people understand that these natur-al elements are gifts from the Creator. Accordingto Lakota creation teachings:

The people were admonished by the Creatorto live in harmony with the new land, water,and air and to be good relatives to everythingthat lived and grew on the earth. If they did asinstructed, the coming generations wouldgrow, live healthy, and thrive. If they did not,the world would be destroyed and made anugly place to live.

In addition to a tradition of protecting MotherEarth’s gifts, tribal nations have a responsibility toprotect their citizens. The Fort Belknap IndianCommunity has long fought against the effects ofextraction industries on their homelands and peo-ple. For decades, Fort Belknap has had to contendwith the environmental and cultural threatsposed by mines in the region. Tens of millions ofdollars have been poured in to cleaning up theenvironmental disaster created by long-gone goldmines. The Fort Belknap Tribes refuse to suffer

through something like that again. “This is theTribes’ land, their water,” said NARF Staff AttorneyNatalie Landreth. “They have laws protecting theirwater; those laws must berespected.”

The Pipeline Permitting ProcessIn 2006, TransCanada Corporation proposed thefirst Keystone Pipeline project. In 2007 thepipeline was approved by Canada’s NationalEnergy Board and, in 2008, George W. Bushissued a Presidential Permit for the crossing ofthe US-Canada border. Work began on thepipeline project that eventually would carry morethan 500,000 barrels of crude per day.

PAGE 2 NARF LEGAL REVIEW

NA

TIVE A

MER

ICA

N R

IGH

TS F

UN

D

Phase 1 of the Keystone Pipeline was permittedin March 2008. Phase 2 and 3 did not require

presidential permits and were built over severalyears starting in 2010. Because it crosses the US-

Canada border, Phase 4 (the KXL pipeline) doesrequire a presidential permit; however, it has been

met with opposition since its initial proposal.Map by Meclee – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0

VOLUME 43, NO. 2 PAGE 3

NA

TIVE A

MER

ICA

N R

IGH

TS FU

ND

If completed, the Keystone XL (KXL) pipelinewould serve as an extension to the originalKeystone pipeline and would add more than500,000 barrels per day of capacity to the existingpipeline. Because KXL would cross the US-Canadaborder, it requires a presidential permit. However,the KXL pipeline has been met with oppositionsince its initial proposal.

TransCanada applied to the United States govern-ment for approval to build the KXL in 2008 andwas denied the application in 2012. The companyresubmitted its application later that same yearand the State Department started a new permitreview process. During that process, the RosebudSioux Tribe submitted its concerns about thepipeline’s impacts on cultural resources, land,water, and treaty rights, as well as the economicsecurity, health, and welfare of the Tribe and itscitizens. In November 2015, Secretary Kerrydenied TransCanada’s permit application becauseit was not in the national interest.

In January 2017, four days after his inauguration,President Trump invited TransCanada to resubmitits application. Two days later, TransCanada sub-mitted its third permit application. Fifty-six daysafter that, without any public environmentalreview or public process of any kind, the StateDepartment granted TransCanada’s permit. Thefast-tracked process was consistent with the pres-ident’s 2016 campaign statements, where hepromised to approve the pipeline if elected. Thepromises and approval came as no surprise.According to a 2015 personal public financial dis-closure report filed with the Federal ElectionCommission, then-candidate Trump held between$250,000 and $500,000 worth of stock inTransCanada Pipelines, Ltd. Landreth explains,“President Trump permitted the Keystone XLpipeline because he wanted to. It was a politicalstep, having nothing to do with what the law actu-ally requires. NARF is honored to represent theRosebud Sioux and Fort Belknap Tribes to fullyenforce the laws and fight this illegal pipeline.”

A Flawed DecisionThroughout the 2017 permitting process, therewas no analysis of trust obligations, no analysis oftreaty rights, no analysis of the potential impact

on hunting and fishing rights, no analysis ofpotential impacts on the Rosebud Sioux Tribe’sunique water system, no analysis of the potentialimpact of spills on tribal citizens, and no analysisof the potential impact on cultural sites in thepath of the pipeline.

When the State Department granted the permitapplication in March 2017, it did so without anypublic process or environmental review. Itreversed its 2015 decision based on the very samerecord and facts with no new or additional infor-mation introduced. And, in its haste to grant thepermit, the Department did not provide reasonedexplanation for why it ignored or went against itsown findings and analyses. In fact, the 2017 deci-sion ignores entire sections of the earlier reportthat are inconsistent with and inconvenient for itsnew conclusion, and the decision even providesfactual findings that contradict the 2015 deci-sion—without any new evidence to support itscontradictory findings.

Neither Rosebud nor Fort Belknap were evergiven detailed information about the proposedroute for the pipeline, and the Department ofState still has not disclosed to the Tribes all affect-ed sites or identified land ownerships of thosesites. Unlike with the two earlier reviews, the 2017review process did not include any consultationwith tribes, even though there are ancestral landsand historic and sacred sites that will be desecrat-ed, destroyed, and damaged by the proposedpipeline construction.

The government was required to analyze how thepipeline will affect the environmental well-beingof the citizens of nearby tribes. This includes thepotential impact on water supplies mentionedabove, but also the potential impact of spills.Although the Environmental Impact Statementclaims to analyze the effects of spills, that analysishas some major problems. The spill analysis wasbased on TransCanada’s “large spill event” sce-nario, which defines a large spill as anythinggreater than or equal to 1,000 barrels per day(42,000 gallons). However, the KXL’s state-of-the-art leak detection system would only identify aleak when more than 535,000 gallons of oil spilledper day. Given that the pipeline’s leak detection

system cannot detect a leak until it is more thanten times larger than the “large spill event” sce-nario in the analysis, the Environmental ImpactStatement is fundamentally flawed and does notadequately analyze the potential impact frominevitable ruptures and spills. “As we have seen,spills from such projects can be catastrophic,”said NARF Staff Attorney Matt Campbell. “TheRosebud Sioux Tribe—just like South Dakota,Nebraska, and Montana—has a duty to protect thehealth and welfare of its citizens. NARF will helpthe Tribe consider all of its options for ensuringthe safety of its citizens, territory, and resources.”

One of the most egregious aspects of the govern-ment’s approval of the pipeline is its refusal tohonor the promises it made to the Tribes over onehundred and fifty years ago. Rosebud and FortBelknap reserved many rights when they signedtreaties with the United States, which the UnitedStates promised to uphold. The United Statespromised to protect tribal lands from environ-mental ruin, to honor the right to hunt on triballands, and to have a permanent homeland for theTribes to live upon. The KXL review did not con-sider the impact of pipeline construction andoperation on tribal hunting and fishing rights, onthe Tribes’ environments, or on sacred places inthe pipeline’s path.

Tribes Sue to Stop Illegal Pipeline PermitThe United States has trust obligations to theRosebud Sioux Tribe and with the help of ourattorneys, the Native American Rights Fund,

we will make sure the United States honorsour treaties, respects our tribal sovereignty,and fulfill and honor those trust obligationsto our tribe, our tribal citizens, and thegreater Oceti Sakowin. The free, uncon-quered, and sovereign Rosebud Sioux Tribewill take any and all necessary steps, up toand including litigation, to stop the KeystoneXL pipeline from irreparably hurting our people, our land and water, and our culturaland historic resources.Hecetu yelo. (That's how it is.) —Rosebud Sioux Tribe President Bordeaux

Throughout the process, it was clear that the 2017decision to grant a presidential permit toTransCanada was made with no regard to estab-lished facts or what is required by law. OnSeptember 10, 2018, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe andthe Fort Belknap Indian Community, in coordina-tion with their counsel, the Native AmericanRights Fund, Daniel Belcourt of Belcourt LawP.C., and David Bell of Geiszler Steele, PC, suedthe Trump Administration in the US DistrictCourt for the District of Montana, Great FallsDivision, for numerous violations of federal law.The Tribes are asking the court to rescind the illegal issuance of the Keystone XL pipeline presi-dential permit. As this article goes to print, we await the Trump Administration’s response tothe complaint. ❂

PAGE 4 NARF LEGAL REVIEW

NA

TIVE A

MER

ICA

N R

IGH

TS F

UN

D

Mural at Rosebud Sioux Tribe Reservation

VOLUME 43, NO. 2 PAGE 5

NA

TIVE A

MER

ICA

N R

IGH

TS FU

ND

CASE UPDATES

The Neets’ąįį Gwich’in of Venetie and ArcticVillage have lived in Alaska’s northern interiorsince time immemorial. Today, through theNative Village of Venetie Tribal Government, theyare one of the largest private landowners in theState of Alaska—holding fee title to the 1.8 mil-lion acre Venetie Indian Reserve. Within theirtribal lands, the Neets’ąįį hunt and harvest cari-bou as part of their traditional, subsistence way oflife. Those caribou are part of the 200,000-strongPorcupine Caribou Herd, which migrates toNeets’ąįį lands from the Arctic National WildlifeRefuge, where the animals calve every summeron the Refuge’s coastal plain. This annual journeyis one of the longest land migration routes of anyanimal on the planet. The Neets’ąįį name for thecoastal plain is Iizhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit(the Sacred Place Where Life Begins).

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is, however,also home to potential oil and gas deposits. Since1980, the Neets’ąįį have joined with all Gwich’inTribes in order to protect the Refuge and the caribou from the impacts of industrialized oil andgas development on the coastal plain.

Near the end of 2017, Congress enacted legisla-tion opening the coastal plain to oil and gasdevelopment. The Bureau of Land Management(BLM) immediately began the process to reviewthe environmental impacts of oil and gas develop-ment in the area, setting a political timeline thatseeks to complete leasing sales in the region priorto the next presidential election. The NativeVillage of Venetie Tribal Government, togetherwith the local tribal village councils, fiercelyoppose the proposed development of the Refugeand the aggressive schedule being set for the necessary environmental review.

NARF represents the Neets’ąįį Tribes in the ederal permitting process surrounding the BLM’senvironmental impact statement. As the BLMbegins its review, NARF and the Native Village ofVenetie Tribal Government are working tirelesslyto protecting the Neets’ąįį way of life by opposingall oil and gas development in the Arctic NationalWildlife Refuge.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: The Native Village of VenetieSeeks to Protect the “Sacred Place Where Life Begins”

PAGE 6 NARF LEGAL REVIEW

NA

TIVE A

MER

ICA

N R

IGH

TS F

UN

D

In May 1868, the United States and the CrowTribe (Apsáalooke) signed the Second Treaty ofFort Laramie. In the treaty, the Tribe ceded alarge piece of its reservation lands to the UnitedStates. However, tribal leaders reserved the rightto hunt on those lands, even though they were nolonger part of the reservation. The treaty clearlystates that the Tribe could continue to hunt onthe ceded lands, as they always had done, so longas the lands remained unoccupied by settlementand the Tribe maintained peace with the UnitedStates. For the Tribe and its citizens, this stipula-tion was essential because, for many Crow people,hunting was (and still is today) not only a way oflife, but also an essential means of survival. Theconditions of that treaty are still in force today.

Today, more than 9,000 of the Crow Tribe’s14,000 enrolled citizens live on the Crow IndianReservation. Hunting for food and survival is stilla vital and necessary part of their culture and wayof life.

In 2014, Crow citizen Clayvin Herrera and othertribal members went hunting on the CrowReservation. They followed a herd of elk from theReservation into the Bighorn National Forestwhere they shot and killed three elk, then tookthe meat back home to help provide food for thewinter. Subsequently, the State of Wyoming citedHerrera for illegally taking an elk in the BighornNational Forest in Wyoming.

Despite the off-reservation hunting rights thathad been promised to the Crow Tribe since 1868,Herrera was found guilty by a state court inWyoming.

A state appellate court affirmed the lower court’sdecision, and the Wyoming Supreme Courtdenied review. The Wyoming courts also declinedto allow NARF’s client, the Crow Tribe, to filebriefs.

Herrera petitioned for certiorari to the U.S.Supreme Court on October 5, 2017, and NARF’s

client, the Crow Tribe, filed an amicus brief onNovember 9, 2017. In January 2018, the SupremeCourt requested the views of the SolicitorGeneral on the case, and on May 15, 2018, theUnited States filed its brief recommending thatthe Court grant the petition and hear the case.The petition was granted at the June 21, 2018,conference.

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed tohear the case, briefing on the merits of the case isunderway (available from the Tribal SupremeCourt Project website at https://sct.narf.org). Inearly September 2018, NARF filed a brief for theCrow Tribe explaining why the Tribe still legallyhas the right to hunt in the lands that it gave up in1868. NARF continues to represent the Crow Tribeon the case. A decision in the case is pending.

Crow Tribe Fighting to Protect Hunting Rights and Way of Life

Crow District Princess in Elk Tooth Dress, Crow Fair 2018

VOLUME 43, NO. 2 PAGE 7

NA

TIVE A

MER

ICA

N R

IGH

TS FU

ND

The Tribal Supreme Court Project is part of theTribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative and isstaffed by the National Congress of AmericanIndians and the Native American Rights Fund.The Project was formed in 2001 in response to aseries of US Supreme Court cases that negativelyaffected tribal sovereignty. The purpose of theProject is to promote greater coordination and toimprove strategy on litigation that may affect therights of all Indian tribes. We encourage Indiantribes and their attorneys to contact the Projectin our effort to coordinate resources, developstrategy, and prepare briefs, especially at the timeof the petition for a writ of certiorari, prior to theSupreme Court accepting a case for review. Youcan find copies of briefs and opinions on themajor cases we track at https://sct.narf.org.

On Monday, September 24, 2018, the Court heldits long conference, during which the Justicesconsidered nearly two-thousand petitions pend-ing since its summer recess. Included amongthem were five of the ten Indian law petitionscurrently pending before the court: MakahIndian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe, et al. (17-1592) (determination of usual and accustomedfishing grounds); County of Amador, Californiav. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior (17-1432) (challeng-ing fee-to-trust acquisition); Lummi Tribe of theLummi Reservation v. United States (17-1419)(Tucker Act suit regarding HUD funds); Fort PeckHousing Authority v. Dep’t of Housing andUrban Development, et al. (17-1353) (tribessuing over allegedly illegally recaptured HUDfunds); Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. Wilkes(17-1175) (tribal sovereign immunity). One weeklater, the Court issued orders from that confer-ence calling for the views of the Solicitor Generalin Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. Wilkes anddenying review in the remaining cases.

Looking ahead to the October 2018 Term, theCourt already has granted three Indian law casesthat will be argued this fall: Washington StateDep’t of Licensing v. Cougar Den (16-1498)(Indian treaty preemption of state taxes), Herrerav. Wyoming (17-532) (off-reservation hunting

rights), and Carpenter v. Murphy (17-1107)(reservation disestablishment). The first oralargument in an Indian law case will be onOctober 30, 2018, when the Court will hearCougar Den. In addition, Associate JusticeAnthony Kennedy has retired and the Senate con-firmed Brett M. Kavanaugh to replace him.Information on Kavanaugh’s Indian law recordcan be found at https://sct.narf.org/articles/indi-an_law_jurispurdence/kavanaugh.pdf.

Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari GrantedThe Court has granted review in three Indian lawcases that have not been decided by the Court:

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OFLICENSING V. COUGAR DEN (16-1498) – OnJune 25, 2018, the Court granted a petition filedby the Washington Department of Licensingseeking review of a decision by the SupremeCourt of Washington, which held that the right totravel provision of the Yakama Nation Treaty of1855 preempts the imposition of taxes and licens-ing requirements by the Department on a triballychartered corporation that transports motor fuelacross state lines for sale on the Reservation. TheDepartment filed its merits brief on August 9,2018, and the United States was among thosethat filed an amicus brief supporting theDepartment. Cougar Den filed its merits brief onSeptember 17, 2018, and amicus brief supportingCougar Den will be filed on or before September24, 2018. The case will be argued October 30,2018.

TRIBAL SUPREME COURT PROJECT

N a t i o n a lCongressof

Amer i c anI n d i a n s

NA

TIVE A

MER

ICA

N R

IGH

TS F

UN

D HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) – On June 28,2018, the Court granted a petition for review filedby a member of the Crow Tribe that challenges aWyoming state court conviction for unlawfullyhunting elk in the Bighorn National Forest. TheCrow Tribe’s 1868 treaty with the United Statesreserves hunting rights in ceded lands, whichincludes what is now the Bighorn NationalForest, so long as those lands remain “unoccu-pied.” However, the state court did not allowPetitioner to assert the Tribe’s treaty huntingright as a bar to prosecution, instead holding thatWyoming’s admission to the Union abrogated theTribe’s treaty hunting rights, and in the alterna-tive that the creation of the Bighorn NationalForest constituted an “occupation” of thoselands. A state appellate court affirmed, and theWyoming Supreme Court denied review. OnJanuary 8, 2018, the Court called for the views ofthe Solicitor General, and on May 22, 2018, theUnited States filed its brief recommending thatthe Court grant the petition. Mr. Herrera filed hisbrief on September 4, 2018, and ten amicus briefswere filed supporting him, including one by theUnited States. The State of Wyoming’s responsebrief is due October 22, 2018. Argument has notyet been scheduled.

CARPENTER V. MURPHY (17-1107) – On May 21,2018, the Court granted a petition filed by theState of Oklahoma seeking review of a U.S. TenthCircuit Court of Appeals decision in a habeas cor-pus action, which reversed the District Court andheld that the State of Oklahoma was withoutjurisdiction to prosecute and convict a memberof the Muscogee (Creek) Nation because thecrime for which he was convicted occurred inIndian country, within the boundaries of theMuscogee (Creek) Reservation. After Mr. Murphywas convicted of murder in Oklahoma state courtand exhausted his appeals, he filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court assertingthat because the crime occurred within theMuscogee (Creek) Nation’s reservation bound-aries, and because he is Indian, the state courthad no jurisdiction. The federal district courtdenied his petition, holding that Oklahoma pos-sessed jurisdiction because the Muscogee (Creek)Reservation was disestablished. On appeal, the

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals utilized the three-factor Solem reservation disestablishment analysisand not only found that Congress did not disestablish the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation,but also that statutes and allotment agreementsshowed that “Congress recognized the existenceof the Creek Nation’s borders.” Likewise, thecourt held that the historical evidence indicatedneither a Congressional intent to disestablish theMuscogee (Creek) reservation, nor a contempora-neous understanding by Congress that it had dis-established the reservation. Accordingly, thecourt concluded that (1) Mr. Murphy’s state con-viction and death sentence were invalid becausethe crime occurred in Indian Country and theaccused was Indian, (2) the Oklahoma Court ofCriminal Appeals (OCCA) erred by concludingthe state courts had jurisdiction, and (3) the fed-eral district court erred by concluding the OCCA’sdecision was not contrary to clearly establishedfederal law. The State filed its merits brief on July23, 2018, and the United States filed an amicusbrief supporting the State. Mr. Murphy’sresponse brief was filed September 19, 2018, andamicus briefs in support of Mr. Murphy are dueSeptember 26, 2018. Oral argument is onNovember 27, 2018. ❂

PAGE 8 NARF LEGAL REVIEW

National Indian Law Library (NILL)

To receive the Indian Law Bulletins by email,sign up at www.narf.org/nill/bulletins

Current Awareness in Your InboxEach week, the National Indian Law Library(NILL) provides free updates on Indian lawthrough the Indian Law Bulletins. More than sixthousand patrons receive the free weeklyupdates by email, while others access themthrough the NILL website or NARF’s Facebookpage. The Indian Law Bulletins are the only regularly published updates on Indian law covering tribal courts, federal and state courts,federal agencies, US legislation, law review articles, and news.

Curated Results from NILL’s ResearchersIt’s easy to get overwhelmed by the sheeramount of information available on the internet,and not all of that information is complete andaccurate. Library Director David Selden and asmall team of volunteers research new develop-ments in Indian Law each week and select onlythe most timely and relevant information toinclude in the Indian Law Bulletins. You canfeel confident that the information you receiveincludes what you need to know to stay up-to-date. This current awareness service isprovided free of charge, and the library can provide additional information relating to yourtopic if needed.

Free Searchable Database of Indian Law and NewsBesides the weekly updates and emails, contentfrom the Indian Law Bulletins is archived on theNILL website. The archived collection serves asa searchable database of Native American lawand legal news. To begin researching a topic,type your search term into the search box on the

right side of the Indian Law Bulletins page. (www.narf.org/nill/bulletins) You can search byIndian law topic or case name, just as you wouldin Google. Your search results will be organizedunder nine tabs that represent each of the indi-vidual bulletins.

Most of the materials that are covered in the bul-letins are available online. If the item you wouldlike to see is not available online, you can contactthe library (www.narf.org/nill/asknill.html) torequest a copy of the item as well as additionalinformation on your topic.

Support the National Indian Law LibraryYour contributions help ensure that the librarycan continue to supply unique and free access toIndian law resources and that it has the financialmeans necessary to pursue innovative andgroundbreaking projects to serve you better. Weare not tax-supported and rely on individualcontributions to fund our services. Please visitwww.narf.org/nill/donate for more informationon how you can support this mission. ❂

Keeping Practitioners Up-To-Date with Indian Law Bulletins

VOLUME 43, NO. 2 PAGE 9

NA

TIVE A

MER

ICA

N R

IGH

TS FU

ND

Library Director David Selden

PAGE 10 NARF LEGAL REVIEW

NA

TIVE A

MER

ICA

N R

IGH

TS F

UN

D

Ak-Chin Indian Community

AMERIND Risk

Buena Vista Rancheria Band of Me-Wuk Indians

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians

Cherokee Nation Businesses

Chickasaw Nation

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians

Delaware Nation

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians

Miccosukee Tribe

Muckleshoot Tribe

National Indian Gaming Association

Native American Church

Nome Eskimo Community

Pala Band of Mission Indians

Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska

Quapaw Tribal Gaming Agency

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians

Seminole Tribe of Florida

Seven Cedars Casino/Jamestown S'Klallam

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community

Suquamish Indian Tribe

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe

Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation

It has been made abundantly clear that non-Indian philanthropy can no longer sustainNARF’s work. NARF is now turning to the tribesto provide this crucial funding to continue ourlegal advocacy on behalf of Indian Country. It isan honor to list those tribes and Native organiza-tions who have chosen to share their good for-tunes with the Native American Rights Fund andthe thousands of Indian clients we have served.

The generosity of tribes and Native organiza-tions is crucial in NARF’s struggle to ensure thefreedoms and rights of all Native Americans.These contributions should be an example forall. We encourage other tribes and organiza-tions to become contributors and partners with NARF in fighting for justice for our peopleand in keeping the vision of our ancestors alive.We thank the following tribes and Native orga-nizations for their generous support of NARF for the 2018 fiscal year (October 1, 2017 toSeptember 30, 2018):

CALL TO ACTION

VOLUME 43, NO. 2 PAGE 11

NA

TIVE A

MER

ICA

N R

IGH

TS FU

ND

THE NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

NARF Annual Report: This is NARF's major report on its programsand activities. The Annual Report is distributed to foundations, majorcontributors, certain federal and state agencies, tribal clients, NativeAmerican organizations, and to others upon request.

NARF Legal Review is published biannually by the Native AmericanRights Fund. Third class postage paid at Boulder, Colorado. There is nocharge for subscriptions, however, contributions are appreciated.

Tax Status: The Native American Rights Fund is a nonprofit, charitableorganization incorporated in 1971 under the laws of the District ofColumbia. NARF is exempt from federal income tax under the provi-sions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and contribu-tions to NARF are tax deductible. The Internal Revenue Service hasruled that NARF is not a "private foundation" as defined in Section509(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.

www.narf.org

Boulder, CO (Main) Office: 1506 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302-6217

(303) 447-8760; FAX (303) 443-7776

Washington, DC Office: 1514 P Street, NW (Rear) Suite D, Washington, DC 20005-1910

(202) 785-4166; FAX (202) 822-0068

Anchorage, AK Office: 745 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 502, Anchorage, AK 99501-1736

(907) 276-0680; FAX (907) 276-2466

The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is the oldest andlargest nonprofit law firm defending and promoting the legalrights of Indian people on issues essential to their tribal sover-eignty, their natural resources, and their human rights. NARFempowers individuals and communities whose rights, economicself-sufficiency, and political participation have been eroded orundermined.

The United States has tried to subjugate and dominate Nativepeoples, yet we still exist today as independent quasi-sovereignnations, each having a unique relationship with the federal gov-ernment. Tribes today are governed by a myriad of federaltreaties, statutes, and case law. Yet it is within these laws thatNative Americans place their hope and faith for justice and theprotection of their way of life.

Since its inception in 1970, NARF has represented over 250tribes in 31 states in such areas as tribal jurisdiction and recog-nition, land claims, hunting and fishing rights, the protection ofIndian religious freedom, and many others. In addition to greatstrides achieving justice on behalf of Native American people,perhaps NARF’s greatest distinguishing attribute has been itsability to bring high quality, highly ethical legal representationto dispossessed tribes. This legal advocacy continues to play avital role in the survival of tribes and their way of life. NARFstrives to protect the most important rights of Indian peoplewithin the limit of available resources.

One of the responsibilities of NARF’s first Board of Directors wasto develop priorities to guide the organization in its mission topreserve and enforce the legal rights of Native Americans. Thecommittee developed five priorities that continue to lead NARFtoday:

● Preserve tribal existence● Protect tribal natural resources● Promote Native American human rights● Hold governments accountable to Native Americans● Develop Indian law and educate the public about Indian rights,

laws, and issues

Under the priority of preserving tribal existence, NARF works toconstruct the foundations that are necessary to empower tribesso that they can continue to live according to their Native tradi-tions, to enforce their treaty rights, to insure their independenceon reservations, and to protect their sovereignty.

Throughout the process of European conquest and colonizationof North America, Indian tribes experienced a steady diminish-ment of their land base to a mere 2.3 percent of its original size.An adequate land base and control over natural resources arecentral components of economic self-sufficiency and self-deter-mination, and are vital to the very existence of tribes. Thus,much of NARF’s work involves protecting tribal naturalresources.

Although basic human rights are considered a universal andinalienable entitlement, Native Americans face the ongoingthreat of having their rights undermined by the United Statesgovernment, states, and others who seek to limit these rights.Under the priority of promoting human rights, NARF strives toenforce and strengthen laws which are designed to protect therights of Native Americans to practice their traditional religion,to use their own language, and to enjoy their culture.

Contained within the unique trust relationship between theUnited States and Indian nations is the inherent duty for all levels of government to recognize and responsibly enforce themany laws and regulations applicable to Indian peoples. Becausesuch laws impact virtually every aspect of tribal life, NARF main-tains its involvement in the legal matters holding governmentsaccountable to Native Americans.

A commitment to developing Indian law and educating the publicabout Indian rights, laws, and issues is essential for the continued protection of Indian rights. This primarily involvesestablishing favorable court precedents, distributing informa-tion and law materials, encouraging and fostering Indian legaleducation, and forming alliances with Indian law practitionersand other Indian organizations.

Requests for legal assistance should be addressed to theLitigation Management Committee at NARF's main office at1506 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302. NARF’s clients are expectedto pay what they can toward the costs of legal representation. ❂

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Robert McGhee, Chairman ..................................................................Poarch Band of Creek Indians

Kurt BlueDog, Vice-Chairman..............Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation

Tex G. Hall, Treasurer ......................................................................................Three Affiliated Tribes

Michael C. Smith ....................................................................................................Chickasaw Nation

Kenneth Kahn ........................................................................Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians

Anita Mitchell ..............................................................................................Muckleshoot Indian Tribe

Rhonda Pitka ..................................................................................................Native Village of Beaver

Lacey A. Horn ............................................................................................................Cherokee Nation

Camille K. Kalama ......................................................................................................Native Hawaiian

Derek Valdo ................................................................................................................Pueblo of Acoma

Rebecca A. Miles ..........................................................................................................Nez Perce Tribe

Robert Miguel ..........................................................................................Ak-Chin Indian Community

MaryAnn K. Johnson ......................................................................................................Portage Creek

Executive Director: John E. Echohawk ..................................................................................Pawnee

NARF LEGAL REVIEW • VOLUME 43, NO. 2 • SUMMER/FALL 2018

Native American Rights Fund1506 BroadwayBoulder, CO 80302

Non-Profit Org.U.S. PostagePAID

Boulder, ColoradoPermit No. 589

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER