Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons^™

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.

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.

Response Brief Of Intervenors Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes - Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))

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

No abstract provided.

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

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

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Appellee Swinomish Indian Tribal Community - Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))

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

No abstract provided.

The Tulalip Tribes' Response Brief - Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))

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

No abstract provided.

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

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

No abstract provided.

Opening Brief Of Appellant Suquamish Tribe - Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))

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

No abstract provided.

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.

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.

Intent Matters: Assessing Sovereign Immunity For Tribal Entities, Gregory J. Wong

Washington Law Review

Indian tribes create corporations and agencies, such as casinos and economic development organizations, to further tribal goals. When such an entity is sued, the courts must determine whether the entity shares in the tribe's inherent sovereign immunity. Like tribes, the federal and state governments also create corporations and agencies to further their governmental goals. To determine whether such a federal entity shares in the federal government's sovereign immunity, the courts ask if Congress intended to grant the entity immunity from suit. For state entities, courts ask if the state government intended to extend its sovereign immunity to the entity by …

Intent Matters: Assessing Sovereign Immunity For Tribal Entities, Gregory J. Wong

Washington Law Review

Indian tribes create corporations and agencies, such as casinos and economic development organizations, to further tribal goals. When such an entity is sued, the courts must determine whether the entity shares in the tribe's inherent sovereign immunity. Like tribes, the federal and state governments also create corporations and agencies to further their governmental goals. To determine whether such a federal entity shares in the federal government's sovereign immunity, the courts ask if Congress intended to grant the entity immunity from suit. For state entities, courts ask if the state government intended to extend its sovereign immunity to the entity by …

Alaska Native Rights, Statehood, And Unfinished Business, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

Alaska Native aboriginal rights to land and associated resources were never dealt with in a comprehensive fashion until 1971, when Congress passed the Alaska Native Lands Claims Settlement Act (ANILCA). Although general principles of federal Indian law provided strong support for the proposition that Alaska's Native people held aboriginal title to much of the new state, the Alaska Statehood Act itself carefully disclaimed any effect on aboriginal title. This approach was in keeping with the Congress's past dealings with Alaska Native property rights. This article outlines the history of Alaska Native aboriginal rights through the Statehood Act along with their …

A Failure Of Expression: How The Provisions Of The U.S. Bankruptcy Code Fail To Abrogate Tribal Sovereign Immunity, Greggory W. Dalton

Washington Law Review

Sections 106(a) and 101(27) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code use the general phrase "other foreign or domestic government" to abrogate sovereign immunity without specifically referencing Indian tribes. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet decided whether these sections of the Code abrogate tribal sovereign immunity, and lower court decisions have come to varying conclusions. As a general rule, Indian tribes are immune from suit due to their inherent sovereignty. Congress, however, may abrogate the sovereign immunity of tribes by unequivocally stating its intent to do so in a statute. When interpreting abrogation provisions in a statute, courts have only found …

Australia's "New Arrangements In Indigenous Affairs": A New Approach Or A New Paternalism?, Joshua M. Piper

Washington International Law Journal

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (“ATSIC”) opened its doors in 1990 with the main objectives of advising the Australian Commonwealth Government (“Government”) on Indigenous policy and providing services for Indigenous communities and individuals. Fifteen years later, with Indigenous living standards still well behind other Australians, the Government deemed ATSIC a failure and abruptly gutted and abolished the Commission. At the same time, the government transitioned to its New Arrangements in Indigenous Affairs program (“New Arrangements”). The New Arrangements are based on two fundamental ideas: better coordination between governments and agencies; and, most important, engaging and empowering Indigenous communities …

Using International Law More Effectively To Secure And Advance Indigenous Peoples' Rights: Towards Enforcement In U.S. And Australian Domestic Courts, John D. Smelcer

Washington International Law Journal

Over the past three decades, indigenous peoples have effected a remarkable redefinition of their status and rights under international law, giving rise to an emerging distinct customary international law of indigenous peoples’ rights. Though that process is ongoing, the next critical step is enforcing these congealing rights “at home” in the domestic courts of indigenous peoples’ surrounding nations. Australia and the United States provide the most difficult and most revealing contexts in which to explore the possibilities and limitations of this necessary next step. The direct enforcement of the emerging customary international law of indigenous peoples’ rights is not yet …

Indian Water Rights And The Federal Trust Responsibility, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

Although federal policy shifted from assimilation to pro-tribal positions, the federal courts have quite consistently supported Indian reserved water rights. Indian water rights, however, were neglected by Congress in favor of non-Indian agricultural development in the arid West. Modem litigation over tribal rights takes place primarily in state courts that are tempted to interpret the few U.S. Supreme Court cases in ways that protect existing non-Indian uses over senior tribal water rights. Modern Indian water rights settlements tend to protect existing non- Indian uses while providing substantial benefits for tribes, but in a haphazard manner. This article examines the history …

Indian Water Rights: Litigation And Settlements, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

This article provides a brief overview of the law of Indian and federal reserved water rights and continues with an examination of the Snake River Water Rights Act. The Act serves as a vehicle for discussion of what is right and what is wrong with the current Indian water rights settlement process. Finally, the article suggests that the Administration modify the portion of its criteria and procedures for Indian water settlements dealing with federal financial contributions. These criteria and procedures need to more accurately reflect the realities of past settlements and promote more successes like the Snake River Water Rights …

Brief For The United States In Opposition - Lummi Nation V. Samish Indian Tribe, Docket No. 05-445 (546 U.S. 1090 (2006))

Lummi Nation v. Samish Indian Tribe, Docket No. 05-445 (546 U.S. 1090 (2006))

No abstract provided.

Brief In Opposition - Lummi Nation V. Samish Indian Tribe, Docket No. 05-445 (546 U.S. 1090 (2006))

Lummi Nation v. Samish Indian Tribe, Docket No. 05-445 (546 U.S. 1090 (2006))

No abstract provided.

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari - Lummi Nation V. Samish Indian Tribe, Docket No. 05-445 (546 U.S. 1090 (2006))

Lummi Nation v. Samish Indian Tribe, Docket No. 05-445 (546 U.S. 1090 (2006))

No abstract provided.

Forsaking The Forests For The Trees: Forestry Law In Papua New Guinea Inhibits Indigenous Customary Ownership, Alyssa A. Vegter

Washington International Law Journal

Illegal logging in the tropical forests of Papua New Guinea is one of the greatest threats to the forests and indigenous people of this island nation. Increasing pressure from the commercial logging industry, legislation that restrains customary ownership, and an unclear legal basis for this ownership subjects the indigenous people of Papua New Guinea to unscrupulous, unsustainable, and illegal logging practices. As a region central to the preservation of global ecological and cultural diversity, the devastating consequences of illegal logging in Papua New Guinea have become nationally and internationally significant. Customary ownership of the forests by the indigenous clans of …

Aboriginal Title And Extinguishment Not So "Clear And Plain": A Comparison Of The Current Maori And Haida Experiences, Jacqueline F. Pruner

Washington International Law Journal

As the end of the United Nations General Assembly's International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples (1995-2004) approaches, indigenous peoples worldwide are proactively seeking an unprecedented reclamation of aboriginal rights lost since European colonization. One of the most all-encompassing rights that is asserted by indigenous peoples is the right of "indigenous title," a legal term of art that is both difficult to define and challenging to recognize. Notwithstanding domestic opposition from their respective provincial or national legislatures, both the Haida of Canada and the Maori of New Zealand are currently pursuing recognition of this indigenous right through their respective judiciaries. …

Judicial Regrets And The Case Of The Cushman Dam, William H. Rodgers, Jr.

Articles

This essay is a criticism of the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States [401 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2005]. It finds particular fault with the court's understanding of Indian treaty rights as "something given," and its outlandish conclusion that fishing was not a "primary purpose" of the Stevens treaties.

The article further criticizes the court's treatment of the "continuing nuisance" doctrine that is applied to afford a statute of limitations defense to enterprises that did lasting environmental damage by diverting the entire North Fork of the Skokomish River out of the watershed.

It concludes …

Putting Flesh On The Bones Of United States V. Winans: Private Party Liability Under Treaties That Reserve Actual Fish For The Tribal Taking, Lindsay Halm

Washington Law Review

One hundred years ago, in United States v. Winans, the United States Supreme Court announced that private parties are subject to the rights reserved by Indians under treaty. Accordingly, tribes enforce their treaty fishing rights in federal court to halt private and government actions that threaten to impair their reserved right to take a fair portion of fish from usual and accustomed fishing stations. In addition to injunctive relief, federal courts may award monetary relief to tribes where Congress limits the treaty fishing right. In general, monetary relief is a remedy against any defendant actor who impairs non-fishing treaty-reserved …

Treatment As Tribe, Treatment As State: The Penobscot Indians And The Clean Water Act, William H. Rodgers, Jr.

Articles

No abstract provided.

Who Can Defend A Federal Regulation? The Ninth Circuit Misapplied Rule 24 By Denying Intervention Of Right In Kootenai Tribe Of Idaho V. Veneman, Stephanie D. Matheny

Washington Law Review

In Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit misapplied Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by denying intervention of right to organizations that had protectable interests in the adoption and implementation of the Roadless Rule. The court based its decision to deny intervention of right on its federal defendant rule, which bars intervention of right by parties other than the federal government to defend a challenge brought under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Kootenai decision extended the reach of the federal defendant rule to include …

Abrogation Or Regulation? How Anderson V. Evans Discards The Makah's Treaty Whaling Right In The Name Of Conservation Necessity, Zachary Tomlinson

Washington Law Review

From 1787 to 1871, the federal government and various Indian tribes entered into hundreds of treaties. Under well-established U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the U.S. Congress has plenary authority to abrogate or modify any of these treaties. The U.S. Supreme Court is reluctant to find congressional intent to do so, however, and requires that this intent be clear and plain. States have no such power to qualify treaties, but the Court has allowed states to regulate treaty rights when doing so is necessary for species conservation. While the U.S. Supreme Court has kept these two lines of cases distinct, the U.S. …

Applicant In Intervention - Appellant Samish Indian Tribe's Reply Brief - United States V. Washington, Docket No. 03-35145 (394 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2005))

United States v. Washington, Docket No. 03-35145 (394 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2005))

No abstract provided.

Answering Brief For The United States - United States V. Washington, Docket No. 03-35145 (394 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2005))

United States v. Washington, Docket No. 03-35145 (394 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2005))

No abstract provided.