Law Commons^™

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Tribal-State Gaming Compacts And Revenue Sharing Provisions: Are The States Upping The Ante? , Richard L. Skeen

ExpressO

In the ten years following, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Seminole Tribe v. Florida, Indian Gaming has grown to over a $19 billion a year industry, in 26 States, involving over 241 Approved Class III Tribal Gaming Ordinances. States have been eager to get a piece of this ever-increasing pie. Some commentators have predicted that States will be reluctant to enter into new compacts or renew existing compacts, however, other’s have indicated that States will continue to demand a percentages of Gaming revenues.

This comment addresses the central issue of whether the Tribal-State compacts entered into subsequent to the …

Is Lara The Answer To Implicit Divestiture?: A Critical Analysis Of The Congressional Delegation Exception, Anna O. Sappington

ExpressO

This work concerns the Supreme Court’s 2004 Indian law decision United States v. Lara, in which the Court held that Congress could enlarge tribal sovereign authority through federal legislation. Proponents of tribal sovereignty generally consider the decision a victory; however, Lara also contains a large amount of dicta in which the Court hints that external limits may circumscribe Congress’ ability to restore tribal sovereignty. The author attempts to explain this discontinuity, and warns that Lara may not represent an unqualified victory for Indian Country. Specifically, the author argues that Lara’s comments could indicate the Court considers tribes divested of the …

Tribal Bondage: Statutory Shackles And Regulatory Restraints On Tribal Economic Development, Gavin Clarkson

ExpressO

Upwards of $50 billion in capital needs go unmet each year in Indian Country in such vital sectors as infrastructure, community facilities, housing, and enterprise development, in part due to the restrictions imposed on tribal access to the capital markets, specifically the ability of tribal governments to issue tax-exempt debt. Section 7871 of the Internal Revenue Code requires tribal tax-free bond proceeds to be used only for “essential governmental functions,” a restriction not applicable to state and municipal bonds, and Section 7871(e) further limits the scope of available tax-exempt bonding to activities “customarily performed by State and local governments with …

A Race Or A Nation? Cherokee National Identity And The Status Of Freedmen's Descendents, S. Alan Ray

ExpressO

The Cherokee Nation today faces the challenge of determining its citizenship criteria in the context of race. The article focuses on the Cherokee Freedmen. As former slaves of Cherokee citizens, the Freedmen were adopted into the Cherokee Nation after the Civil War pursuant to a treaty with the United States, and given unqualified rights of citizenship. The incorporation of the Freedmen into the tribe was resisted from the start, and now, faced with a decision of the Cherokee Nation’s highest court affirming the descendents’ citizenship rights, the Nation prepares to vote on a constitutional amendment which would impose an Indian …

Water Reallocation By Settlement: Who Wins, Who Loses, Who Pays?, Rosalind H. Bark

ExpressO

The 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act (AWSA) is the current standard for what a comprehensive, negotiated settlement can achieve in terms of water rights reallocation, water resource management, and water supply reliability enhancement. This note reviews the flows of money and water specified in Titles I and II of the AWSA to identify the signatory and non-signatory parties that benefit from the settlement and the allocation of costs between the various parties to the agreement. Opportunity costs are also considered. Innovative elements of the agreement are discussed particularly those that improve water supply reliability for the Gila River Indian Community …

“Hail To The Potomac Drainage Basin Indigeneous Persons” Just Doesn’T Have The Same Ring: Is The Name “Redskins” Offensive Enough To Outweigh Tradition?, Marvin L. Longabaugh

ExpressO

In this article, I discuss whether the federal government has an obligation to act to restrict the NFL’s Washington franchise’s use of the term “Redskins”. The article discusses the unique obligation that the courts have placed on the federal government with respect to Native Americans. It articulates two approaches that have been employed with varying degrees of success in abolishing the nickname. Free speech concerns are explored with respect to this issue. Finally, the article briefly discusses some proposed methods that the government could employ to “encourage” the Redskins and the NFL to change the nickname.

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

Gayanashogowa And Guardianship: Expanding And Clarifying The Federal-Tribal Trust Relationship, Kavitha Janardhan

ExpressO

The Onondaga Nation of New York seeks to nullify a series of treaties executed by the State of New York, and thereby assert title to over 3100 square miles of land in Central New York State. The goal of the suit is to enforce an environmental restoration of culturally and historically significant aboriginal lands. In order to bring a claim against the State, the Nation must first compel the federal gov-ernment to act on its behalf. By emphasizing distinctive features of Iroquois self-government, the following Note suggests ways to expand the federal government’s trust responsibility to protect cultural inter-ests in …

The Pocahontas Exception: American Indians And Exceptionalism In Virginia’S Racial Integrity Act Of 1924, Kevin Noble Maillard

ExpressO

Most scholarship on Loving v. Virginia (1967) briefly mentions the “Pocahontas Exception,” a subsection of Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924 which counted persons of limited American Indian ancestry as white. However, few of these works raise the issue outside of a footnote. This article addresses the treatment of Native American ancestry as a curious exception to the threat of racial impurity. Virginia’s antimiscegenation statute sought to eradicate stealth intrusions of tainted blood into the white race, which proponents believed to be threatened “by the quagmire of mongrelization.” Exempted from this racial policing regime were those influential whites, the “First …

Choosing Tribal Law: Why State Choice-Of-Law Principles Should Apply To Disputes With Tribal Contacts, Katherine J. Florey

ExpressO

This article considers a problem in Indian law that has been much commented upon but little explored: When a state court exercises jurisdiction over a case with tribal contacts, what law should govern? While the Supreme Court has developed a detailed set of rules dictating whether cases with tribal contacts should be heard in a state or tribal forum, it has devoted almost no attention to the question of which law should apply once a forum has been chosen. Thus, many state courts have simply assumed, without explicit consideration of the issue, that state law should apply to any case …

Law, Narrative, And The Continuing Colonist Oppression Of Native Hawaiians, David Barnard

ExpressO

The article does three things. First, and for the first time, it brings to bear the perspectives of critical race theory, postcolonial theory, and narrative theory on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Rice v. Cayetano, which dealt a severe blow to Native Hawaiians’ struggles for redress and reparations for a century of dispossession and impoverishment at the hands of the United States. Second, it demonstrates in the concrete case of Hawaii the power of a particular historical narrative—when it is accepted uncritically by the Supreme Court—to render the law itself into an instrument of colonial domination. Third, it …