Law Commons^™

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.

Tribal Sovereignty And Native American Women’S Rights In The Wake Of Castro-Huerta, Erin Geraldine Demarco

Senior Theses and Projects

This thesis will primarily examine the sexual assault crisis Native American women face and the jurisdictional issues that influence whether and how tribes prosecute and punish perpetrators. Federal Indian policy and various Supreme Court cases have increasingly undermined tribal sovereignty over the past few centuries, resulting in tribal governments lacking the ability to respond to sexual violence against their members. Native women who experience sexual violence often find themselves entangled in a complex web of jurisdictional issues, resulting in a lack of clarity about which government body has authority. As a result, their cases are frequently left unprosecuted, denying them …

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 …

Oklahoma V. Castro-Huerta, United States Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh

US Government Documents related to Indigenous Nations

This United States (US) Supreme Court decision, argued April 27, 2022 and decided June 29, 2022 expanded the reach of state jurisdiction to allow for prosecution of crimes that occur on Indigenous land, regardless of whether or not a state is named as having such jurisdiction under US Public Law 280. In 2020, the US Supreme Court's decision on McGirt v. Oklahoma established that much of the eastern part of the state of Oklahoma is Indigenous land and therefore falls under either tribal jurisdiction or Federal jurisdiction. In 2015 Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta was charged and convicted of child neglect by …

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 …

Mcgirt V. Oklahoma, United States Supreme Court, Neil M. Gorsuch

US Government Documents related to Indigenous Nations

This United States (US) Supreme Court case, decided July 9, 2020, clarified the boundaries of Indigenous land within the state of Oklahoma (OK) and, by extension, the limits of Oklahoma’s jurisdictional reach. Following the perpetration of his crimes in 1997, Oklahoma state court convicted Jimcy McGirt of three sexual offenses; however, McGirt contended that the state lacked the jurisdiction to try him for these crimes because he is an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation and because his crimes took place on the Creek Reservation (Muscogee Nation). Oklahoma argued that although an 1883 Treaty established a section of land for …

Operationalizing Free, Prior, And Informed Consent, Carla F. Fredericks

Publications

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) has acknowledged varying ways in which international actors can protect, respect and remedy the rights of indigenous peoples. One of these methods is the concept of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as described in Articles 10, 19, 28 and 29. There has been much debate in the international community over the legal status of the UNDRIP, and member states have done little to implement it. In applied contexts, many entities like extractive industries and conservation groups are aware of risks inherent in not soliciting FPIC and have endeavored to …

Native Youth & Juvenile Injustice In South Dakota, Addie C. Rolnick

Scholarly Works

In this essay, Professor Rolnick uses the three themes of racism, jurisdiction, and tribal sovereignty to provide a snapshot of the juvenile justice system in South Dakota as it impacts Native youth. First, she describes the tribal juvenile justice systems in the state. She argues tribal systems should rightfully play a central role handling Native youth offenders, but they are underfunded and may not therefore be sufficiently responsive to young offenders' needs. Second, she examines the impact of federal power over youth on reservations in South Dakota. Specifically, federal juvenile jurisdiction, as well as federal financial and administrative power, can …

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 …

Born Native, Raised White: The Divide Between Federal And Tribal Jurisdiction With Extra-Tribal Native American Adoption, Christina Lewis

Christina Lewis

No abstract provided.

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

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beyond Uniqueness: Reimagining Tribal Courts' Jurisdiction, Katherine J. Florey

Katherine J. Florey

If there is one point about tribal status that the Supreme Court has stressed for decades if not centuries, it is the notion that tribes as political entities are utterly one of a kind. This is to some extent reasonable; tribes, unlike other governments, have suffered the painful history of colonial conquest, making some distinctive treatment eminently justifiable. But recent developments have demonstrated to many tribes that uniqueness has its disadvantages. In the past few decades, the Supreme Court has undertaken a near-complete dismantling of tribal civil jurisdiction over nonmembers. Under current law, tribes have virtually no authority to permit …

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

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction And Human Rights Accountability In Indian Country, Kristen Matoy Carlson

Law Faculty Research Publications

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.

The Crazy Horse Malt Liquor Case: From Tradition To Modernity And Halfway Back ( Part Iii Of South Dakota Law Review Trilogy), Frank Pommersheim

Frank Pommersheim

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.

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

Articles

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 …

Crow Water Rights Settlement Act Of 2010, United States 111th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: Title IV: Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement - Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement of 2010 in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (PL111-291| 124 Stat 3097). The Act ratifies, authorizes, and confirms the water rights 1999 Compact between the Crow Tribe and MT. The DOI Secretary shall promptly execute the Compact and comply with applicable environmental acts and regulations. The Act provides for: 1) the Tribe to a) rehabilitate and improve the Crow Irrigation Project; and b) Reclamation to construct the municipal, rural, and industrial water system; 2) creates a Project Management Committee made up of the Tribe, …

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 …

Slides: Indian Water Rights, Robert T. Anderson

Western Water Law, Policy and Management: Ripples, Currents, and New Channels for Inquiry (Martz Summer Conference, June 3-5)

Presenter: Robert T. Anderson, Native American Law Center, University of Washington Law School

19 slides

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.