Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell

Following years of pressure to list the upper Missouri River population of Arctic grayling as an endangered or threatened species, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service issued a 2014 Finding that listing the fish was “not warranted at this time.” The Service relied on voluntary Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances in the Big Hole River Basin to determine that listing criteria under the Endangered Species Act was not met and therefore listing was not necessary. Ultimately, the court deferred to agency expertise and found that the Service’s decision not to list the Arctic grayling was reasonable

Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc. v. United States

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1935 is the proper avenue for Tribes pursuing restoration of their historic trust lands. The Oneida Indian Nation of New York long sought to reassert tribal jurisdiction over its historic homeland in Central New York. These efforts were largely unsuccessful until 2008 when the United States took 13,000 acres of this historic homeland into trust on behalf of the Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act. This case affirms the federal government’s plenary powers over Indian Tribes, and that neither state sovereignty principles, nor the Enclave Clause upset that authority

United States v. Washington

Pacific Northwest Treaties, now known as the Stevens Treaties, were negotiated in the 1850’s between the U.S. and Indian tribes, including the Suquamish Indian Tribe, Jamestown S\u27Klallam, Lower Elwha Band of Klallams, Port Gamble Clallam, Nisqually Indian Tribe, Nooksack Tribe, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe, Upper Skagit Tribe, Tulalip Tribes, Lummi Indian Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, Puyallup Tribe, Hoh Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, Quileute Indian Tribe, Makah Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (“Tribes”). The Stevens Treaties stated that “the right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and situations, is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the Territory…” While Indian fishing rights under the Treaty were clearly established, disputes over scope and interpretation have spurred ongoing conflict and litigation between the Tribes and Washington State since 1970. United States v. Washington is yet another installment of case law interpreting these fishing rights in favor of the tribes, this time holding that Washington has a duty to refrain from building culverts that hinder fish passage and reduce the number of fish available for tribal harvest. The court further held that Washington’s current culverts violated this duty, necessitating their removal

DIAMONDS IN THE ROUGH

The research conducted in this paper examines the diamond mining permit held by Korean C & K Mining in Cameroon’s Eastern Province, and the company’s relationship with the government, as well as the many other actors with legitimate claims to the same land. With a complete lack of transparency in the sector, poor governmental capacity, dedication and incentives for company oversight, a high level of secrecy in terms of C & K Mining, and the complete lack of an informed and connected civil society, it is the finding of this paper that diamonds will only play into the resource curse. Furthermore, it will be the local communities that will bear the largest costs associated with diamond exploitation, as they will receive no economic benefit and will lose their land, livelihoods, and, for the indigenous Baka, their culture. Legal land ownership and property rights matter, as does good governance, but where all land resources legally belong to the state, and the state is characterized not by the people, but by a bloated crony-styled bureaucracy, the law of the land is, literally, government expropriation and re-appropriation to the entity that will garner the most economic rent. In this way, local communities have no real economic or political bargaining power. In terms of the current state of Cameroonian affairs, coexistence and universal benefit from diamonds at Mobilong are highly unlikely. Instead, what is more likely is the eruption of conflict between the various actors and the further marginalization of the land and those local communities that live off of it

BEHIND THE HARD FACE OF HOMELESSNESS

The basement of the Poverello Center, familiarly known as the Salcido Center, is a communal daytime space that caters to homeless and transient folks, and really anybody in Missoula wishing to escape the elements and with no where else to go. The Center is unique in that it is non-discriminatory, even against those who may be under the influence of alcohol. Though this is a brash assumption, when the term homelessness is mentioned, a mental image of an individual with specific characterizations is often conjured along with it, and in most cases, in at least appearance, the clients of the Salcido Center play into this image. However, after having spent some time with these folks, it is apparent that these clients are people in the sense that all people are people, with faults and successes and have often found themselves in their current situations for specific reasons. In essence, our basic research question is, who are the people at the Salcido Center? What trends exist among them that they make use of the services the Sal offers, namely a communal space? We have applied these basic questions to different societal groups, as we have seen fit, in order to find more accurate information through the lens of our question. These groups include veterans, Native Americans, those with mental illness, youth and women. Through countless informal conversations, oral histories and observations, we have identified these trends in the hope of better understanding the backgrounds and needs of the population that uses the Salcido