Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (4)
- Administrative Law (2)
- Environmental Law (2)
- Law and Race (2)
- Natural Resources Law (2)
-
- Agency (1)
- Arts and Humanities (1)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Cultural Heritage Law (1)
- Gaming Law (1)
- Indigenous Studies (1)
- Land Use Law (1)
- Property Law and Real Estate (1)
- Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration (1)
- Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonial Studies (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- Sociology (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Torts (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brackeen V. Zinke, Bradley E. Tinker
Brackeen V. Zinke, Bradley E. Tinker
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 1978, Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act to counter practices of removing Indian children from their homes, and to ensure the continued existence of Indian tribes through their children. The law created a framework establishing how Indian children are adopted as a way to protect those children and their relationship with their tribe. ICWA also established federal standards for Indian children being placed into non-Indian adoptive homes. Brackeen v. Zinke made an important distinction for the placement preferences of the Indian children adopted by non-Indian plaintiffs; rather than viewing the placement preferences in ICWA as based upon Indians’ …
Upstate Citizens For Equality, Inc. V. United States, Kirsa Shelkey
Upstate Citizens For Equality, Inc. V. United States, Kirsa Shelkey
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Indian Reorganization Act of 1935 is the proper avenue for Tribes pursuing restoration of their historic trust lands. The Oneida Indian Nation of New York long sought to reassert tribal jurisdiction over its historic homeland in Central New York. These efforts were largely unsuccessful until 2008 when the United States took 13,000 acres of this historic homeland into trust on behalf of the Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act. This case affirms the federal government’s plenary powers over Indian Tribes, and that neither state sovereignty principles, nor the Enclave Clause upset that authority.
Lewis V. Clarke, Summer L. Carmack
Lewis V. Clarke, Summer L. Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
One manner in which Indian tribes exercise their inherent sovereignty is by asserting sovereign immunity. In Lewis v. Clarke, the Court decided that the sovereign immunity extended to instrumentalities of tribes did not further extend to tribal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The Court acknowledged the concerns of the lower court, namely, the possibility of setting a precedent allowing future plaintiffs to sidestep a tribe’s sovereign immunity by suing a tribal employee in his individual capacity. However, the Supreme Court ultimately felt that the immunity of tribal employees should not exceed the immunity extended to state …
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe V. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Jody D. Lowenstein
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe V. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Jody D. Lowenstein
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Standing Rock Sioux’s effort to enjoin the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ permitting of an oil pipeline was stifled by the United States District Court of the District of Columbia. In denying the preliminary injunction, the court held that the Tribe failed to show that the Corps violated the National Historic Preservation Act, and that the Tribe’s belated effort to litigate was futile after failing to participate in the consultation process.
Michigan V. Bay Mills Indian Community, Wesley J. Furlong
Michigan V. Bay Mills Indian Community, Wesley J. Furlong
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Justice Kagan’s gambling metaphors aside, Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community stands as a resolute affirmation of the Supreme Court’s refusal to qualify tribal sovereign immunity absent congressional action. Bay Mills reaffirms that as domestic dependent nations, tribes exercise inherent sovereign immunity, qualified only by the clear direction of Congress, not the Court. While the dissent vented its frustration with the precedent relied on by the majority, the Court reaffirmed that tribal sovereign immunity extends to all commercial activities occurring off Indian land.