Law Commons^™

The Right To Counsel For Indians Accused Of Crime: A Tribal And Congressional Imperative, Barbara L. Creel

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Native American Indians charged in tribal court criminal proceedings are not entitled to court appointed defense counsel. Under well-settled principles of tribal sovereignty, Indian tribes are not bound by Fifth Amendment due process guarantees or Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Instead, they are bound by the procedural protections established by Congress in the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. Under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Indian defendants have the right to counsel at their own expense. This Article excavates the historical background of the lack of counsel in the tribal court arena and exposes the myriad problems that it …

Towards A Balanced Approach For The Protection Of Native American Sacred Sites, Alex Tallchief Skibine

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Protection of "sacred sites" is very important to Native American religious practitioners because it is intrinsically tied to the survival of their cultures, and therefore to their survival as distinct peoples. The Supreme Court in Oregon v. Smith held that rational basis review, and not strict scrutiny, was the appropriate level of judicial review when evaluating the constitutionality of neutral laws of general applicability even when these laws impacted one's ability to practice a religion. Reacting to the decision, Congress enacted the Relgious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which reinstated the strict scrutiny test for challenges to neutral laws of general …

Williams V. Lee And The Debate Over Indian Equality, Bethany R. Berger

Michigan Law Review

Williams v. Lee (1959) created a bridge between century-old affirmations of the immunity of Indian territories from state jurisdiction and the tribal self-determination policy of the twentieth century. It has been called the first case in the modern era of federal Indian law. Although no one has written a history of the case, it is generally assumed to be the product of a timeless and unquestioning struggle of Indian peoples for sovereignty. This Article, based on interviews with the still-living participants in the case and on examination of the congressional records, Navajo council minutes, and Supreme Court transcripts, records, and …

Why Senator John Mccain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months And A Hundred Yards Short Of Citizenship, Gabriel Chin

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution provides that “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” A person must be a citizen at birth to be a natural born citizen. Senator McCain was born in the Canal Zone in 1936. Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president.

Why John Mccain Was A Citizen At Birth, Stephen E. Sachs

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Senator John McCain was born a citizen in 1936. Professor Gabriel J. Chin challenges this view in this Symposium, arguing that McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone (while his father was stationed there by the Navy) fell into a loophole in the governing statute. The best historical evidence, however, suggests that this loophole is an illusion and that McCain is a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be president.

Abandoning The Pia Standard: A Comment On Gila V, Galen Lemei

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Part I of this Note examines the development of Indian reserved water rights, and the practicably irrigable acreage method of quantifying those rights, as defined by the Court. Part II describes the arguments of state and private interests that oppose broad Indian water rights. Part III discusses Gila V, including the Arizona Supreme Court's rationale for abandoning the standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court and the standard for quantifying Indian reserved rights that the court applied in its place. Part IV analyzes the Arizona Supreme Court's justifications for abandoning the standard, and considers alternate grounds for the …

Protecting Native Americans: The Tribe As Parens Patriae, Cami Fraser

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Note argues that Tribes have parens patriae standing to protect their citizens through litigation on their behalf, even if not all of their citizens are engaged in the litigation. Part I examines the current requirements of parens patriae standing, as articulated by the Supreme Court. Part II briefly examines the nature of tribal sovereignty within American jurisprudence and concludes that parens patriae standing is a retained right of the Tribes. Part III examines the way in which the Federal District Courts have incorrectly handled tribal parens patriae standing. This section argues for a reexamination of Supreme Court doctrine when …

Speaking To Tribal Judges On The Matter Of Improving Children's Court Practice In Child Abuse And Neglect Cases In Our Country: A Proposal For A Uniform Children's Code, Julian D. Pinkham

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Since the 1970 the responsibilities of the tribal children's courts have increased dramatically. In child welfare case tribal courts no longer simply determine whether a child has been abused or neglected. They now also oversee the placement of the child in a shelter, foster care, or a permanent home, as well as determine the parent's treatment or visitation rights The complexity of the cases causes unacceptable delays in placing Indian children in need of care and hinders the placement of Indian children within the tribal community.

Judge Pinkham introduces a proposed solution to the problems of current tribal child welfare …

Tribal Court Jurisdiction Over Civil Disputes Involving Non-Indians: An Assessment Of National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. V. Crow Tribe Of Indians And A Proposal For Reform, Allison M. Dussias

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note examines the issue of tribal court jurisdiction over cases in which both Indians and non-Indians are parties and discusses the Supreme Court's most recent statement on the issue. In National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, an Indian minor brought a personal injury action in Crow Tribal Court against a Montana school district operating a school on state-owned land within the Crow Reservation. The Supreme Court concluded that the tribal court itself should first determine whether it has the power to exercise civil subject-matter jurisdiction over non-Indian property owners in a tort case. Defendants …

A Proposal For Extension Of The Occupational Safety And Health Act To Indian-Owned Businesses On Reservations, Maureen M. Crough

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that the Act does not apply to Indian businesses because it does not specifically mention them. While sensitive to the desirability of providing certain kinds of federal protections to all Americans, this Note takes the position that the sovereignty of Indian tribes should not be abrogable except by considered and express congressional action. Concluding nonetheless that the workplace protection the Occupational Safety and Health Act provides should be extended to Indians on reservations, the Note proposes amendment of the Act: to extend its protection; to permit tribal enforcement; and to authorize the federal government to help financially …