The case, filed in August, is also drawing attention because of the way the rights of nature law is intertwined with the interpretation and application of tribes’ treaty rights, an environmental justice issue at the heart of U.S. If the rights of Manoomin are enforced by the tribal court, it would be the first time a rights of nature law is upheld by a U.S-based court and would be notable for applying to off-reservation acts. Those ideas are rooted in Indigenous world views and the incorporation of rights of nature laws into western legal systems is seen by some advocates as a shift towards a more pluralistic legal system. By giving nature legal rights, they say, humans can begin to change direction toward a more sustainable future.ĭoing so will require humans to change their relationship with the environment, the proponents say, moving away from exploiting it toward an interdependent relationship, in which humans come to see themselves as an intrinsic part of nature. The proponents contend that current environmental protection law treats nature as human property that can be damaged and destroyed, which has resulted in an ecological crisis facing the planet. Proponents of the laws argue that if non-human entities like corporations, trusts and governments have legal rights, elements of nature ought to have unique rights, too, with selected humans acting as their legal guardians. Globally, rights of nature legislation, judicial rulings and constitutional amendments have emerged in Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, India, New Zealand, Ecuador and Uganda, among other countries. Rights of nature laws have taken root in more than 30 Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities across the country in, among other states, Ohio, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. The case is the first rights of nature enforcement action filed in a tribal court and is notable because the plaintiffs claim that acts taken by the state of Minnesota on non-reservation land have impinged on the rights of Manoomin, which are protected under a 2018 White Earth Nation tribal law.
Late last month, Enbridge Energy announced that it had completed construction of its Line 3 oil pipeline replacement across Minnesota, despite strenuous opposition from Native American tribes and environmental activists.īut a permit issued to Enbridge for construction of the pipeline is being challenged in the White Earth Nation tribal court, in an unconventional case that asserts the legal rights of Manoomin, or wild rice, to “exist, flourish, regenerate and evolve.” The plant, which “grows on water,” is the lead plaintiff in the case, joined by the White Earth Band of Ojibwe and others.