Law Commons^™

In The Room Where It Happens: How Federal Appropriations Law Can Enforce Tribal Consultation Policies And Protect Native Subsistence Rights In Alaska, Kieran O'Neil

Washington Law Review

Federal-tribal consultation is one of the only mechanisms available to American Indian and Alaska Native communities to provide input on federal management decisions impacting their subsistence lands and resources. While the policies of many federal agencies “require” consultation, agencies routinely approach consultation as a procedural checklist rather than a two-way dialogue for receiving, considering, and incorporating tribal needs and concerns. Substantive failure to consult is particularly harmful for Alaska Native communities that rely heavily on subsistence resources yet lack treaties to enforce hunting and fishing rights. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) contains a “rural priority” provision that …

Examining Comity And The Exhaustion Doctrine In Tribal Court Civil Jurisdiction: The Cherokee Nation’S Opioid Litigation, Joëlle Klein

Washington Law Review

The opioid epidemic has devastated communities throughout the United States over the last two decades. Native American and Alaska Native tribes faced disproportionate impacts and suffered the long-lasting consequences that opioid addiction causes families and communities. In response, states and municipalities across the United States sued the distributors and pharmacies responsible for illegally diverting opioids. In April of 2017, the Attorney General for the Cherokee Nation, Todd Hembree, initiated a civil suit against opioid pharmaceutical distributors and retailers: CVS, Walgreens, Wal-Mart (pharmacies), and McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen (distributors). Although other tribes in the United States also brought claims against …

Why Our Stories Matter: A Perspective On The Restatement From The State Bench, Raquel Montoya-Lewis

Washington Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bringing Congress And Indians Back Into Federal Indian Law: The Restatement Of The Law Of American Indians, Kirsten Matoy Carlson

Washington Law Review

Congress and Native Nations have renegotiated the federal-tribal relationship in the past fifty years. The courts, however, have failed to keep up with Congress and recognize this modern federal-tribal relationship. As a result, scholars, judges, and practitioners often characterize federal Indian law as incoherent and inconsistent. This Article argues that the Restatement of the Law of American Indians retells federal Indian law to close the gap between statutory and decisional law. It realigns federal Indian law with the modern federal-tribal relationship negotiated between Congress and tribal governments. Consistent with almost a half-century of congressional law and policy, the Restatement clarifies …

Protection For Indian Sacred Sites, William A. Fletcher

Washington Law Review

No abstract provided.

Off-Reservation Treaty Hunting Rights, The Restatement, And The Stevens Treaties, Ann E. Tweedy

Washington Law Review

The underdevelopment of the law of off-reservation treaty hunting and gathering poses challenges for treatises like the groundbreaking Restatement of the Law of American Indians (“Restatement”). With particular attention to sections 83 and 6 of the Restatement, this Article explores those challenges and offers some solutions for dealing with them in subsequent editions of the Restatement. Specifically, this Article explores the potential usefulness of historical law in interpreting treaties, the need to tie treaty interpretation to the language of the treaty when an explicit right is at issue, the proper application of the reserved rights doctrine and the Indian canons, …

Reflections On The Restatement Of The Law Of American Indians, Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Washington Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tribal Sovereignty And Economic Efficiency Versus The Courts, Robert J. Miller

Washington Law Review

American Indian reservations are the poorest parts of the United States, and a higher percentage of Indian families across the country live below the poverty line than any other ethnic or racial sector. Indian nations and Indian peoples also suffer from the highest unemployment rates in the country and have the highest substandard housing rates. The vast majority of the over three hundred Indian reservations and the Alaska Native villages do not have functioning economies. This lack of economic activity starves tribal governments of the tax revenues that governments need to function. In response, Indian nations create and operate business …

Let Indians Decide: How Restricting Border Passage By Blood Quantum Infringes On Tribal Sovereignty, Rebekah Ross

Washington Law Review

American immigration laws have been explicitly racial throughout most of the country’s history. For decades, only White foreign nationals could become naturalized citizens. All racial criteria have since vanished from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)—all but one. Section 289 of the INA allows “American Indians born in Canada” to freely cross into the United States if they possess at least 50% blood “of the American Indian race.” Such American Indians cannot be prohibited from entering the United States and can obtain lawful permanent residence status—if they meet the blood quantum requirement. Such racialized immigration controls arbitrarily restrict cross-border Indigenous …

Kū Kia‘I Mauna: Protecting Indigenous Religious Rights, Joshua Rosenberg

Washington Law Review

Courts historically side with private interests at the expense of Indigenous religious rights. Continuing this trend, the Hawai‘i State Supreme Court allowed the Thirty- Meter-Telescope to be built atop Maunakea, a mountain sacred to Native Hawaiians. This decision led to a mass protest that was organized by Native Hawaiian rights advocates and community members. However, notwithstanding the mountain’s religious and cultural significance, Indigenous plaintiffs could not prevent construction of the telescope on Maunakea.

Unlike most First Amendment rights, religious Free Exercise Clause claims are not generally subject to strict constitutional scrutiny. Congress has mandated the application of strict scrutiny to …

Savage Inequalities, Bethany R. Berger

Washington Law Review

Equality arguments are used today to attack policies furthering Native rights on many fronts, from tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian abusers to efforts to protect salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest. These attacks have gained strength from a modern movement challenging many claims by disadvantaged groups as unfair special rights. In American Indian law and policy, however, such attacks have a long history, dating almost to the founding of the United States. Tribal removal, confinement on reservations, involuntary allotment and boarding schools, tribal termination—all were justified, in part, as necessary to achieve individual Indian equality. The results of these policies, justified …

Remaining Silent In Indian Country: Self-Incrimination And Grants Of Immunity For Tribal Court Defendants, Philipp C. Kunze

Washington Law Review

A defendant in state and federal courts is entitled to a constitutional protection against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment establishes this privilege, which can only be overcome through a voluntary waiver or by the granting of an appropriate level of immunity. Those grants of immunity were made mutually binding on the state and federal governments in Kastigar v. United States and Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. However, in Talton v. Mayes, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not limit the conduct of the more than 560 federally recognized Indian tribes …

Rent-A-Tribe: Tribal Immunity To Shield Patents From Administrative Review, Seth W.R. Brickey

Washington Law Review

In 2017, Allergan Pharmaceuticals entered into an agreement with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (SRMT). Allergan agreed to assign several patents to SRMT and to pay an initial sum of $13.75 million and annual royalties of approximately $15 million. SRMT, in exchange, licensed the rights to use the patents back to Allergan and agreed not to waive its tribal immunity in any administrative proceeding challenging the patents. Two outcomes were expected as a result of this Allergan-Mohawk agreement. First, Allergan would retain the rights to manufacture and market a highly profitable drug while insulating the underlying patents from an unforgiving …

Making It Work: Tribal Innovation, State Reaction, And The Future Of Tribes As Regulatory Laboratories, Katherine Florey

Washington Law Review

This Article examines a growing phenomenon: even as the Supreme Court has steadily contracted the scope of tribes’ regulatory authority, many tribes have in recent years passed innovative laws and ordinances, often extending well beyond any comparable initiatives at the state or local level. Recently, for example, the Navajo Nation passed a comprehensive taxation scheme designed to discourage the consumption of unhealthy food items and to subsidize the purchase of healthy ones—a scheme far more ambitious than the soda tax efforts that have stalled in many cities and states. Likewise, amid national controversy over marijuana legalization, the Flandreau Santee Sioux …

Traditional Ecological Disclosure: How The Freedom Of Information Act Frustrates Tribal Natural Resource Consultation With Federal Agencies, Sophia E. Amberson

Washington Law Review

When a federal or state agency administers environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, the agency often consults with tribes. During these consultations, tribes often disseminate traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)—knowledge acquired by a tribe that is a mix of environmental ethics and scientific knowledge about tribal use. However, these consultations may be susceptible to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The purpose of FOIA is to inform the public. Because TEK often contains sensitive information about tribal social, cultural, psychological, and economic factors, tribes do not want this information available to those who are not members of …

Indian Treaty Fishing Rights And The Environment: Affirming The Right To Habitat Protection And Restoration, Michael C. Blumm

Washington Law Review

In 1970, several tribes in the Pacific Northwest, along with their federal trustee, sued the state of Washington claiming that numerous state actions violated their treaty rights, which assured them “the right of taking fish in common with” white settlers. The tribes and their federal trustee maintained that the treaties of the 1850s guaranteed the tribes: (1) a share of fish harvests for subsistence, cultural, and commercial purposes; (2) inclusion of hatchery fish in that harvest share; and (3) protection of the habitat necessary for the salmon that were the basis of the treaty bargain and the peaceful white settlement …

Indigenous Peoples And Epistemic Injustice: Science, Ethics, And Human Rights, Rebecca Tsosie

Washington Law Review

This Article explores the use of science as a tool of public policy and examines how science policy impacts indigenous peoples in the areas of environmental protection, public health, and repatriation. Professor Tsosie draws on Miranda Fricker’s account of “epistemic injustice” to show how indigenous peoples have been harmed by the domestic legal system and the policies that guide the implementation of the law in those three arenas. Professor Tsosie argues that the theme of “discovery,” which is pivotal to scientific inquiry, has governed the violation of indigenous peoples’ human rights since the colonial era. Today, science policy is overtly …

Negotiating Jurisdiction: Retroceding State Authority Over Indian Country Granted By Public Law 280, Robert T. Anderson

Washington Law Review

This Article canvasses the jurisdictional rules applicable in American Indian tribal territories—“Indian country.” The focus is on a federal law passed in the 1950s, which granted some states a measure of jurisdiction over Indian country without tribal consent. The law is an aberration. Since the adoption of the Constitution, federal law preempted state authority over Indians in their territory. The federal law permitting some state jurisdiction, Public Law 280, is a relic of a policy repudiated by every President and Congress since 1970. States have authority to surrender, or retrocede, the authority granted by Public Law 280, but Indian tribal …

Fleeing East From Indian Country: State V. Eriksen And Tribal Inherent Sovereign Authority To Continue Cross-Jurisdictional Fresh Pursuit, Kevin Naud Jr.

Washington Law Review

In State v. Eriksen, the Washington State Supreme Court held that Indian tribes do not possess the inherent sovereign authority to continue cross-jurisdictional fresh pursuit and detain a non-Indian who violated the law on reservation land. This Comment argues the Eriksen Court’s reliance on RCW 10.92.020 is misplaced. RCW 10.92.020 is irrelevant to a consideration of sovereign authority. States do not have the authority to unilaterally define tribal power. A tribe retains sovereign powers not taken by Congress, given away in a treaty, or removed by implication of its dependent status. The Eriksen Court also misinterpreted the state statute …

Inextricably Political: Race, Membership, And Tribal Sovereignty, Sarah Krakoff

Washington Law Review

Courts address equal protection questions about the distinct legal treatment of American Indian tribes in the following dichotomous way: are classifications concerning American Indians “racial or political?” If the classification is political (i.e., based on federally recognized tribal status or membership in a federally recognized tribe) then courts will not subject it to heightened scrutiny. If the classification is racial rather than political, then courts may apply heightened scrutiny. This Article challenges the dichotomy itself. The legal categories “tribe” and “tribal member” are themselves political, and reflect the ways in which tribes and tribal members have been racialized by U.S. …

Banishing Habeas Jurisdiction: Why Federal Courts Lack Jurisdiction To Hear Tribal Banishment Actions, Mary Swift

Washington Law Review

The Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA or “the Act”) of 1968 grants members of federally recognized Indian tribes individual civil rights similar to those enumerated in the federal Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Act provides only one explicit federal remedy for violations of the rights secured therein: the writ of habeas corpus. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to read an implied cause of action into the Act. Some federal courts assert habeas jurisdiction to review tribal banishment actions alleged to violate ICRA, but not over disenrollment actions. Tribal banishment means an individual tribal member is cast …

Distinguishing Carcieri V. Salazar: Why The Supreme Court Got It Wrong And How Congress And The Courts Should Respond To Preserve Tribal And Federal Interests In The Ira's Trust-Land Provisions, Sarah Washburn

Washington Law Review

Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and hold land in trust for the purpose of providing land for Indians. In 2009, the Supreme Court held in Carcieri v. Salazar that to qualify for the benefits of Section 5, tribes must show they were under federal jurisdiction at the time the IRA was enacted in 1934. The Carcieri Court then determined that the Narragansett tribe, which obtained federal recognition in 1983 under the 25 C.F.R. Part 83 recognition process, had not proven that it was under federal jurisdiction in 1934. Carcieri …

Distinguishing Carcieri V. Salazar: Why The Supreme Court Got It Wrong And How Congress And The Courts Should Respond To Preserve Tribal And Federal Interests In The Ira's Trust-Land Provisions, Sarah Washburn

Washington Law Review

Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and hold land in trust for the purpose of providing land for Indians. In 2009, the Supreme Court held in Carcieri v. Salazar that to qualify for the benefits of Section 5, tribes must show they were under federal jurisdiction at the time the IRA was enacted in 1934. The Carcieri Court then determined that the Narragansett tribe, which obtained federal recognition in 1983 under the 25 C.F.R. Part 83 recognition process, had not proven that it was under federal jurisdiction in 1934. Carcieri …

Distinguishing Carcieri V. Salazar: Why The Supreme Court Got It Wrong And How Congress And The Courts Should Respond To Preserve Tribal And Federal Interests In The Ira's Trust-Land Provisions, Sarah Washburn

Washington Law Review

Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and hold land in trust for the purpose of providing land for Indians. In 2009, the Supreme Court held in Carcieri v. Salazar that to qualify for the benefits of Section 5, tribes must show they were under federal jurisdiction at the time the IRA was enacted in 1934. The Carcieri Court then determined that the Narragansett tribe, which obtained federal recognition in 1983 under the 25 C.F.R. Part 83 recognition process, had not proven that it was under federal jurisdiction in 1934. Carcieri …

The Legacy Of Solem V. Bartlett: How Courts Have Used Demographics To Bypass Congress And Erode The Basic Principles Of Indian Law, Charlene Koski

Washington Law Review

Only Congress has authority to change a reservation’s boundaries, so when disputes arise over whether land is part of a reservation, courts turn to congressional intent. The challenge is that in many cases, Congress expressed its intent to diminish or disestablish a reservation as long as one hundred years ago through a series of “surplus land acts.” To help courts with their task, the Supreme Court in Solem v. Bartlett laid out a three-tiered analysis. This Comment examines how courts have applied modern demographics—part of Solem’s third and least probative tier—and demonstrates that they have consistently and primarily used the …

Intent Matters: Assessing Sovereign Immunity For Tribal Entities, Gregory J. Wong

Washington Law Review

Indian tribes create corporations and agencies, such as casinos and economic development organizations, to further tribal goals. When such an entity is sued, the courts must determine whether the entity shares in the tribe's inherent sovereign immunity. Like tribes, the federal and state governments also create corporations and agencies to further their governmental goals. To determine whether such a federal entity shares in the federal government's sovereign immunity, the courts ask if Congress intended to grant the entity immunity from suit. For state entities, courts ask if the state government intended to extend its sovereign immunity to the entity by …

Intent Matters: Assessing Sovereign Immunity For Tribal Entities, Gregory J. Wong

Washington Law Review

Indian tribes create corporations and agencies, such as casinos and economic development organizations, to further tribal goals. When such an entity is sued, the courts must determine whether the entity shares in the tribe's inherent sovereign immunity. Like tribes, the federal and state governments also create corporations and agencies to further their governmental goals. To determine whether such a federal entity shares in the federal government's sovereign immunity, the courts ask if Congress intended to grant the entity immunity from suit. For state entities, courts ask if the state government intended to extend its sovereign immunity to the entity by …

A Failure Of Expression: How The Provisions Of The U.S. Bankruptcy Code Fail To Abrogate Tribal Sovereign Immunity, Greggory W. Dalton

Washington Law Review

Sections 106(a) and 101(27) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code use the general phrase "other foreign or domestic government" to abrogate sovereign immunity without specifically referencing Indian tribes. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet decided whether these sections of the Code abrogate tribal sovereign immunity, and lower court decisions have come to varying conclusions. As a general rule, Indian tribes are immune from suit due to their inherent sovereignty. Congress, however, may abrogate the sovereign immunity of tribes by unequivocally stating its intent to do so in a statute. When interpreting abrogation provisions in a statute, courts have only found …

Putting Flesh On The Bones Of United States V. Winans: Private Party Liability Under Treaties That Reserve Actual Fish For The Tribal Taking, Lindsay Halm

Washington Law Review

One hundred years ago, in United States v. Winans, the United States Supreme Court announced that private parties are subject to the rights reserved by Indians under treaty. Accordingly, tribes enforce their treaty fishing rights in federal court to halt private and government actions that threaten to impair their reserved right to take a fair portion of fish from usual and accustomed fishing stations. In addition to injunctive relief, federal courts may award monetary relief to tribes where Congress limits the treaty fishing right. In general, monetary relief is a remedy against any defendant actor who impairs non-fishing treaty-reserved …

Who Can Defend A Federal Regulation? The Ninth Circuit Misapplied Rule 24 By Denying Intervention Of Right In Kootenai Tribe Of Idaho V. Veneman, Stephanie D. Matheny

Washington Law Review

In Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit misapplied Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by denying intervention of right to organizations that had protectable interests in the adoption and implementation of the Roadless Rule. The court based its decision to deny intervention of right on its federal defendant rule, which bars intervention of right by parties other than the federal government to defend a challenge brought under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Kootenai decision extended the reach of the federal defendant rule to include …