Digital Commons Network^™

Narrowing From Below: How Lower Courts Can Limit Castro-Huerta, Michaela B. Parks

Arkansas Law Review

This Note will offer a plan for how Indian country can move forward in the wake of what anti-tribal sovereignty entities want to be a devasting decision. This Note advocates for a judicial remedy plan. Specifically, it calls upon lower courts to narrow Castro-Huerta from below to limit the effects of the decision. Part II provides a brief introduction to federal Indian law, a general overview of criminal jurisdiction in Indian country, and concludes with a summary of Castro-Huerta. Part III outlines two approaches to limiting that lower courts can use to narrow Castro-Huerta from below: textual limiting and fact-to-fact …

Case Law On American Indians: October 2022 - August 2023, Thomas P. Schlosser

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Jurisprudential Quilt Of Tribal Civil Jurisdiction: An Analysis Of Tribal Court Approaches To Determining Civil Adjudicatory Jurisdiction, Jacob Maiman-Stadtmauer

American Indian Law Journal

There are hundreds of Native American Tribes with their own judicial systems and courts. Under the test first established in Montana v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States has provided a single, nebulous standard for determining the limits of tribal courts’ jurisdiction over non-Indians. Scholars and federal jurists have long assumed that the Supreme Court's framework limiting tribal civil jurisdiction is essential to how tribal courts determine jurisdiction. This paper challenges that assumption. Through a first of its kind survey of tribal court decisions on civil jurisdiction, spanning 26 tribes and covering 71 decisions, this paper …

An Unfair Cross Section: Federal Jurisdiction For Indian Country Crimes Dismantles Jury Community Conscience, Alana Paris

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, federal jury pools must reflect a fair cross section of the community in which a crime is prosecuted and from which no distinct group in the community is excluded. The community in which a crime is prosecuted varies widely in Indian country based on legislative reforms enacted by Congress to strip indigenous populations of their inherent sovereignty. Under the Major Crimes Act, the federal government has the right to adjudicate all serious crimes committed by one American Indian against another American Indian or non-Indian within Indian country. American Indian defendants under …

Emulsified Property, Jessica A. Shoemaker

Pepperdine Law Review

The typical American Indian reservation is often described as a “checkerboard” of different real property ownership forms. Individual parcels of reservation land may be held in either a special federal Indian trust status or in fee, by either Indian or non-Indian owners. The general jurisdictional framework provides that federal and sometimes tribal law sets the rights and responsibilities of trust owners, while fee owners are subject to a peculiar mix of state and tribal law. Many scholars have analyzed the challenges created by this checkerboard pattern of property and jurisdiction. This Article, however, reveals an even more complicated issue that …

Analysis Of A Bias-Based Exception To The Doctrine Of Exhaustion In Wilson V. Bull, R. Mitchell Mcgrew

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tribal Courts, Non-Indians, And The Right To An Impartial Jury After The 2013 Reauthorization Of Vawa, Cynthia Castillo

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Unfinished Joruney: Arctic Indigenous Rights, Lands, And Jurisdiction?, Tony Penikett

Seattle University Law Review

The indigenous rights movement has been defined as a struggle for land and jurisdiction. Over the last forty years, American and Canadian governments made much progress on the land question in the Arctic and sub-Arctic; however, from an irrational fear of the unknown, politicians in Washington, D.C. and Ottawa have effectively blocked the pathways to aboriginal jurisdiction or self-government. During the late-twentieth century in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, as well as in Nisga’a territory, indigenous governments negotiated local government powers, but continent-wide progress on the question of indigenous jurisdiction has stalled. This Article considers the formation and implementation …

House Republicans Add Insult To Native Women’S Injury, Ryan Devreskracht

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

State V. Jim: A New Era In Washington's Treatment Of The Tribes?, Matthew Deisen

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cooperative Agreements: Government-To-Government Relations To Foster Reservation Business Development, Joel H. Mack, Gwyn Goodson Timms

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Kiss The Ring, But Never Touch The Crown: How U.S. Policy Denies Indian Women Bodily Autonomy And The Save Native Women Act's Attempt To Reverse That Policy, Hossein Dabiri

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Indian Law, Mark R. Peterson, May Lee Tong

Golden Gate University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Preemption: A Roadmap For The Application Of Tribal Law In State Courts, Jackie Gardina

American Indian Law Review

This article contends that state courts are not necessarily free to apply state law when the courts are exercising concurrent adjudicative jurisdiction with tribal courts. Instead, Indian law principles of preemption direct state courts to apply tribal law in certain cases. A guiding principle emerges from the preemption analysis: if a tribe has legislative jurisdication over the dispute, tribal law must ordinarily be applied. In these instances, a state's laws, including its choice-of-law rules, are preempted by federal common law because their application interferes with the federal government's and the tribes' interest in promoting tribal self-government, including the tribes' ability …

Sovereign Litigants: Native American Nations In Court, Catherine T. Struve

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Theory, In Practice: Judging State Jurisdiction In Indian Country, Carole Goldberg

University of Colorado Law Review

International relations theory suggests some new ways of thinking about the conflict between states and tribes over jurisdiction in Indian country. Realists portray the struggle as a clash of self-interested political actors, with the most powerful prevailing. Norms-driven theory suggests that perceptions of which legal system satisfies widely accepted standards for fair and effective justice will determine which entity is allowed jurisdiction. Since norms-driven analysis seems more prevalent in Supreme Court decisions, this Article pursues its implications for tribal-state jurisdictional conflicts, finding that federal courts and other decisionmakers seem to favor state over tribal jurisdiction because state jurisdiction is perceived …

Sorting Out Civil Jurisdiction In Indian Country After Plains Commerce Bank: State Courts And The Judicial Sovereignty Of The Navajo Nation, Dale Beck Furnish

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Framing Concurrent Jurisdiction Issues In The Self-Determination Era: Accepting The First Circuit's Analysis But Rejecting Its Application To Preserve Tribal Sovereignty, Nathaniel T. Haskins

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Formalism And Judicial Supremacy In Federal Indian Law, Alex Tallchief Skibine

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

At A Complex Crossroads: Animal Law In Indian Country, Rob Roy Smith

Animal Law Review

Animals play an especially important role in Indian history and culture. The value of animals to the tribes is reflected in every aspect of their culture, from song and dance to land use and treaty terms. Tribes today are still dependent on fish and wildlife for ceremonies and everyday living. The tribes have translated their value for animals into creative ways to protect domestic animals and manage animal populations, including working with state and federal governments to co-manage fish and wildlife populations. This article begins with a discussion of criminal and civil jurisdiction within Indian Country. The article provides a …

The Potential Passage Of Proposed Senate Bill 578 And Its Implication On Hicks V. Nevada And Twenty Years Of Supreme Court Jurisprudence, Richard L. Warren

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Winner, Best Appellate Brief In The 2003 Native American Law Student Association Moot Court Competition, Matthew Baumgartner, Elizabeth Ann Kronk

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Income Taxation Of Nonmember Indians In Indian Country, Jennifer Nutt Carleton

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adjudication And The Problems Of Incommensurability, Brett G. Scharffs

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Easements On Tribal Sovereignty, Todd Miller

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction Of Ute Reservation Lands, John D. Barton, Candace M. Barton

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nevada V. Hicks: No Threat To Most Nevada Tribes, Ronald Eagleye Johnny

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Legend Of "Crow Dog:" An Examination Of Jurisdiction Over Intra-Tribal Crimes Not Covered By The Major Crimes Act, James W. King

Vanderbilt Law Review

Native American tribes present unique problems to American jurisprudence and governance. Unquestionably subject to federal control on some levels, they have maintained the "inherent powers of a limited sovereignty" over internal affairs.' While both the Supreme Court and Congress have recognized this sovereignty, specific Congressional mandate can abrogate it at any time. This Note addresses the question of whether Congress has mandated federal jurisdiction over all serious crimes committed by Indians against other Indians on tribal land.

The story is long and complicated, with its beginnings in the 1883 Supreme Court case Ex parte Crow Dog, in which the Court …

Winner, Best Appellate Brief In The 1998-99 Native American Law Student Association Moot Court Competition, Lisa F. Cook Gambler, Melissa E. Stephenson

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cases

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.