Law Commons^™

Indigenous Rights In The Trump Era, Tereza M. Szeghi

Biennial Conference: The Social Practice of Human Rights

This paper examines the ways in which the Dakota Access Pipeline and the related protests were divergently covered in mainstream versus alternative news sources and what this divergent coverage suggests about the current status of American Indian affairs and the role of American Indians in the U.S. cultural imaginary. Moreover, the paper will address the status of American Indian tribal sovereignty in the Trump era more broadly, with particular focus on American Indians' treaty-related rights to self-determination in the use of their lands.

Review: 'Oklahoma’S Indian New Deal', Blake Watson

School of Law Faculty Publications

Citation information for the book reviewed:

Blackman, Jon S. 2013. Oklahoma's Indian New Deal. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2013.

Buying West Florida From The Indians: The Forbes Purchase And Mitchel V. United States (1835), Blake Watson

School of Law Faculty Publications

This article takes an in-depth look at Mitchel v. United States. In order to place the Forbes Purchase in historical context, Part I provides an overview of European and American control of Florida. Part II details the events that led to the sale by the Creek and Seminole Indians of nearly a million and a half acres in 1804-1806 and 1810-1811. Part III describes the efforts of the purchasers and subsequent grantees to obtain confirmation of the Forbes Purchase. Part IV details the decisions in the Mitchel litigation. The purchase is compared in Part V to other transfers of Indian …

Buying America From The Indians: Johnson V. Mcintosh And The History Of Native Land Rights, Blake Watson

Books and Book Chapters by University of Dayton Faculty

The backstory on the court decision that defined and limited American Indian property rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Johnson v. McIntosh established the basic principles that govern American Indian property rights to this day. In the case, more than one Anglo-American purchaser claimed title to the same land in what is now southern Illinois. The Piankeshaw Indians had deeded the land twice—once to speculators in 1775, and again, thirty years later, to the United States by treaty. The Court decided in favor of William McIntosh, who had bought the land from the U.S. government. Writing for the majority, …

The Doctrine Of Discovery And The Elusive Definition Of Indian Title, Blake Watson

School of Law Faculty Publications

On April 15, 2011, the Lewis & Clark Law Review hosted its Spring Symposium, entitled “The Future of International Law in Indigenous Affairs: The Doctrine of Discovery, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States.” While the Symposium participants agree that the doctrine of discovery should be rejected, they disagree on the impact of the discovery doctrine on native land rights in the United States. This Article examines the differing views of Indian title. Specifically, it contrasts the “limited owner” view of Indian title, under which Indian tribes retained nearly all of their proprietary rights, subject only to …

The Impact Of The American Doctrine Of Discovery On Native Land Rights In Australia, Canada, And New Zealand, Blake Watson

School of Law Faculty Publications

In Johnson v. McIntosh, John Marshall proclaimed that European discovery of America “gave exclusive title to those who made it . . . .” 21 U.S. 543, 574 (1823). Marshall presented a revised version of the discovery doctrine in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), yet it is Johnson that remains the leading decision on native property rights in the United States. The Johnson discovery rule has not only diminished native rights in the United States, but has also influenced the definition of indigenous land rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

This Article sheds light on …

John Marshall And Indian Land Rights: A Historical Rejoinder To The Claim Of "Universal Recognition" Of The Doctrine Of Discovery, Blake A. Watson

Blake A Watson

Contrary to the statements of John Marshall in Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823), the native inhabitants of America were considered by many as the absolute and "true" owners of the lands they occupied, and could retain or transfer title to their lands as they saw fit. The founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams, argued that Europeans could justly occupy lands in America only through purchase from the Indians. Likewise, individuals in New Jersey who based their title on Indian deeds championed native land rights in the eighteenth century. It is evident that Marshall's statement that Indians …

Indian Gambling In Ohio: What Are The Odds?, Blake A. Watson

Blake A Watson

This article explores the options available under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to Indian groups and tribes seeking to establish gambing establishments in Ohio. Although the focus is on Ohio, the analysis would apply to any effort to establish "off-resevation" gaming facilities under the IGRA.

Indian Gambling In Ohio: What Are The Odds?, Blake Watson

School of Law Faculty Publications

This article describes the options available to Indian groups and recognized Indian tribes to establish off-reservation gaming operations pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

The Curious Case Of Disappearing Federal Jurisdiction Over Federal Enforcement Of Federal Law: A Vehicle For Reassessment Of The Tribal Exhaustion/Abstention Doctrine, Blake Watson

School of Law Faculty Publications

This article describes the tribal exhaustion/abstention doctrine set forth in National Farmers Union Ins. Companies v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845 (1985) and Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9 (1987).