Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons^™

Undrip And The Intervention: Indigenous Self-Determination, Participation, And Racial Discrimination In The Northern Territory Of Australia, Anna Cowan

Washington International Law Journal

The adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP”) by the General Assembly in 2007 was a landmark achievement in the development of indigenous rights under international law, particularly through its unequivocal recognition of indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination. That same year, Australia launched a comprehensive Intervention into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, which purported to safeguard important human rights but was heavily criticized for its discriminatory and non-consultative approach. This article explores the meaning of self-determination under international law, now that the long debate over whether indigenous peoples are “peoples” has finally been …

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. …

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 …

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 …

Creating An Environmental No-Man's Land: The Tenth Circuit's Departure From Environmental And Indian Law Protecting A Tribal Community's Health And Environment, Claire R. Newman

Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy

When Congress set aside reservations as permanent homelands for American Indian people, it intended that the reservations remain “livable environments.” When resource conflicts arise in “checkerboard” areas outside Indian reservations—where land ownership alternates between a tribe, state, the federal government and private, non-Indian landowners—disputes over regulatory jurisdiction and environmental protection intensify. Two recent Tenth Circuit opinions determining the next generation of uranium mining in the checkerboard area of the Navajo Nation, depart from the intent of environmental laws and fail to uphold federal agencies’ trust responsibilities to the Tribe. These cases illustrate the legal vulnerabilities tribal communities in checkerboard areas …

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 …

Dewatering Trust Responsibility: The New Klamath River Hydroelectric And Restoration Agreements, Thomas P. Schlosser

Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy

In order to protect Indian property rights to water and fish that Indians rely on for subsistence and moderate income, the Interior Department Solicitor has construed federal statutes and case law to conclude that the Department must restrict irrigation in the Klamath River Basin of Oregon and Northern California. Draft legislation, prescribed by the February 18, 2010 Klamath River Hydroelectric Agreement and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, would release the United States from its trust duty to protect the rights of Indian tribes in the Klamath River Basin. The agreements will also prolong the Clean Water Act Section 401 application …

Addressing The Overrepresentation Of The Maori In New Zealand's Criminal Justice System At The Sentencing Stage: How Australia Can Provide A Model For Change, Joanna Hess

Washington International Law Journal

New Zealand’s 2002 Sentencing Act provides several ways a sentencing court may take an offender’s cultural or ethnic background into account. Given the disproportionate rate of recidivism among New Zealand’s indigenous Maori offenders and international and domestic concerns regarding this problem, the Act’s provisions offer one method for addressing and mitigating this issue. However, these sentencing provisions remain largely unknown or underused. This comment argues that in order to tackle these concerns, left unaddressed by the current Sentencing Act, New Zealand should restructure its sentencing provisions to follow the legislative model that is developing in Australian states, particularly the model …

Aboriginal Title In The Canadian Legal System: The Story Of Delgamuukw V. British Columbia, Robert T. Anderson

Chapters in Books

Canada is grappling with legal issues surrounding indigenous property rights on a scale not seen in the United States since the mid-nineteenth century. Fundamental questions of fairness and justice related to indigenous peoples’ property rights are in flux in the province of British Columbia–an area the size of the states of California, Oregon, and Washington combined. The recognition of aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution in 1982 and recent judicial developments made it clear to the provincial government that nearly the entire province may be subject to aboriginal title claims. Consequently, the aboriginal nations and B.C. government have embarked on …

Reply Brief For Petitioner - Suquamish Indian Tribe V. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))

Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))

No abstract provided.

Brief In Opposition To Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari By Respondent Tribes Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, And Tulalip Tribes - Suquamish Indian Tribe V. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))

Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))

No abstract provided.

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 …

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari - Suquamish Indian Tribe V. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))

Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))

No abstract provided.

Fee Simple Estate And Footholds In Fishing: The Australian High Court's Formalistic Interpretation Of The Aboriginal Land Rights Act, Heather Ahlstrom Coldwell

Washington International Law Journal

The coast of the Northern Territory in Australia boasts some of the world’s best fishing and hosts a lucrative commercial fishing industry. The Northern Territory is also home to over 50,000 Aboriginal people who rely on these waters for their subsistence and livelihood. However, the Aboriginal population is effectively barred from participating in the commercial fishing industry by Territory regulations and economic disadvantage. In July 2008, ten years of litigation over access to coastal waters adjoining Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory culminated with the High Court’s decision in Northern Territory of Australia v. Arnhem Land Aboriginal Trust. The …

Disproportionate Disenfranchisement Of Aboriginal Prisoners: A Conflict Of Law That Australia Should Address, Megan A. Winder

Washington International Law Journal

In 2006, Australia’s Parliament banned all prisoners from voting. A year later, Vickie Lee Roach, a female prisoner of Aboriginal descent, challenged the blanket ban promulgated in the 2006 amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918 (“Electoral Act”). Vickie won, but in a limited way. The High Court found an implied right to vote in the Australian Constitution, but held that Parliament could limit such voting, as it did in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment of 2004 (“E & R Amendment”), disenfranchising any prisoner serving three or more years in jail. This Comment argues that the E & R …

Indian Water Rights, Practical Reasoning, And Negotiated Settlements, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

This Article first reviews the few Indian water rights cases that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided. The Article then traces a threshold issue common to Indian water rights litigation in the federal and state courts: how to determine the purposes of a reservation for which a reserved water right should be implied. A review of major Indian water rights cases demonstrates the generally confusing state of the law in significant respects, especially with regard to the "purposes" determination.

This Article posits that the relative uncertainty in this area has created an environment in which creative, practical solutions to conflicts …

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 …

Entitled Against None: How The Wrongly Decided Croker Island Case Perpetuates Aboriginal Dispossession, Siiri Aileen Wilson

Washington International Law Journal

Australia’s 1992 landmark case of Mabo v. The State of Queensland [No. 2] revoked the concept of terra nullius and for the first time since European colonization of the continent allowed indigenous Australians to obtain legal ownership of their traditional lands. The following year this groundbreaking decision became statutory law with the enactment of the Native Title Act (NTA) of 1993. The case law and the statutory act both failed, however, to adequately address the question of Aboriginal claims to sea properties. For many Australian Aboriginal groups, ownership of traditional lands does not abruptly end at a shoreline but extends …

Answering Brief For The United States - United States V. Washington, Docket No. 08-35794 (593 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2009) (As Amended Jan. 10, 2010))

United States v. Washington, Docket No. 08-35794 (593 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2009) (as amended Jan. 10, 2010))

No abstract provided.

Preface, William H. Rodgers Jr.

Chapters in Books

In the 2006-07 term, the U.S. Supreme Court gave us a flood of new thought on the topic of environmental law.

Too bad.

[Addresses cases interpreting the Clean Water Act, the Superfund law, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act. In the Summer 2008 Pocket Part for Volume 1.]

Australia's Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act: Addressing Indigenous And Non-Indigenous Inequities At The Expense Of International Human Rights?, Jenna Gruenstein

Washington International Law Journal

In 2007, Australia passed the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act (“NT Emergency Response Act”), ostensibly reacting to a recent report detailing exceedingly high levels of sexual abuse of Aboriginal children. This Comment argues that the NT Emergency Response Act likely violates Australia’s obligations under the United Nations’ (“U.N.”) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“Racial Discrimination Convention”). The NT Emergency Response Act provides an opportunity for the Racial Discrimination Convention’s enforcement body, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”), to extend its application of the specialized guidelines for indigenous peoples beyond the …

Reply Brief Of Appellants Makah, Puyallup, Quileute, Upper Skagit, Nisqually And Squaxin Island Indian Tribes, Lummi Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, And Swinomish Indian Tribal Community - United States V. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))

No abstract provided.

Appellant Suquamish Tribe's Reply Brief To Response Brief Of Appellee Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Brief Of Appellee Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, The Tulalip Tribes' Response Brief And Response Brief Of Intervenors Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam - Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010)) Tribes

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))

No abstract provided.

Response Brief Of Appellees Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes - United States V. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief Of Appellant Skokomish Indian Tribe - United States V. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief For Appellant Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe - United States V. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))

No abstract provided.