[jjeaff]

So does the federal treaty state specifically that land sold does not have to provide easement? If not, it seems like a weak argument. By that same logic, he could also put a casino on it and say that since the land was part of the federal treaty, he no longer has to abide by any state law at all while on the property.

[sdnlafkjh34rw]

I assume if the treaty says that he can open a casino then he can open a casino. Again, federal law supercedes state law. It's written into our constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

I have no idea what clause they took from that treaty to show he has the right not to provide easements.

[xyzzyz]

It does sound like a strange argument, but he already won in court precisely on it: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...