Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- #Landback (1)
- Anishinaabe (1)
- City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation (1)
- Due process (1)
- Equal protection (1)
-
- Indian country (1)
- Indian reservation status (1)
- Jurisdictional relationships (1)
- McGirt v. Oklahoma (1)
- Michigan Tribal Courts (1)
- Mino-Bimaadiziwin (1)
- Murphy v. Royal (1)
- Native Nations (1)
- Nebraska v. Parker (1)
- Public land ownership (1)
- Seven Grandfather Teachings (1)
- South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe (1)
- Transfer statutes (1)
- Tribal jurisdiction (1)
- Tribal sovereignty (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
(Some) Land Back...Sort Of: The Transfer Of Federal Public Lands To Indian Tribes Since 1970, Audrey Glendenning, Martin Nie, Monte Mills
(Some) Land Back...Sort Of: The Transfer Of Federal Public Lands To Indian Tribes Since 1970, Audrey Glendenning, Martin Nie, Monte Mills
Articles
Federal public lands in the United States were carved from the territories of Native Nations and, in nearly every instance, required that the United States extinguish pre-existing aboriginal title. Following acquisition of these lands, the federal government pursued various strategies for them, including disposal to states and private parties, managing lands to allow for multiple uses, and conservation or protection. After over a century of such varied approaches, the modern public landscape is a complex milieu of public and private interests, laws and policies, and patchwork ownership patterns. This complexity depends on—and begins with—the history of Indigenous dispossession but subsequent …
Due Process And Equal Protection In Michigan Anishinaabe Courts, Matthew Fletcher
Due Process And Equal Protection In Michigan Anishinaabe Courts, Matthew Fletcher
Articles
In 1968, largely because the United States Constitution does not apply to tribal government activity, Congress enacted the Indian Civil Rights Act–a federal law that requires tribal governments to guarantee due process and equal protection to persons under tribal jurisdiction. In 1978, the Supreme Court held that persons seeking to enforce those federal rights may do so in tribal forums only; federal and state courts are unavailable. Moreover, the Court held that tribes may choose to interpret the meanings of “due process” and “equal protection” in line with tribal laws, including customary laws. Since the advent of the self-determination era …
Restoring Indian Reservation Status: An Empirical Analysis, Michael K. Velchik, Jeffery Zhang
Restoring Indian Reservation Status: An Empirical Analysis, Michael K. Velchik, Jeffery Zhang
Articles
In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court held that the eastern half of Oklahoma was Indian country. This bombshell decision was contrary to settled expectations and government practices spanning 111 years. It also was representative of an increasing trend of federal courts recognizing Indian sovereignty over large and economically significant areas of the country, even where Indians have not asserted these claims in many years and where Indians form a small minority of the inhabitants.
Although McGirt and similar cases fundamentally turn on questions of statutory and treaty interpretation, they are often couched in consequence-based arguments about the good …