Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons^™

To Sue And Be Sued: Capacity And Immunity Of American Indian Nations, Richard B. Collins

Publications

Can American Indian nations sue and be sued in federal and state courts? Specific issues are whether tribes have corporate capacity to sue, whether a Native group has recognized status as a tribe, and whether and to what extent tribes and their officers have governmental immunity from suit. Tribal capacity to sue is now well established, and federal law has well-defined procedures and rules for tribal recognition. But tribal sovereign immunity is actively disputed.

This Article reviews retained tribal sovereignty in general and summarizes past contests over tribal capacity to sue and their resolution into today’s settled rule. Next is …

Indigenous Rights In The Trump Era, Tereza M. Szeghi

Biennial Conference: The Social Practice of Human Rights

This paper examines the ways in which the Dakota Access Pipeline and the related protests were divergently covered in mainstream versus alternative news sources and what this divergent coverage suggests about the current status of American Indian affairs and the role of American Indians in the U.S. cultural imaginary. Moreover, the paper will address the status of American Indian tribal sovereignty in the Trump era more broadly, with particular focus on American Indians' treaty-related rights to self-determination in the use of their lands.

The Supreme Court's Last 30 Years Of Federal Indian Law: Looking For Equilibrium Or Supremacy?, Alexander Tallchief Skibine

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Since 1831, Indian nations have been viewed as Domestic Dependent Nations located within the geographical boundaries of the United States. Although Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged that Indian nations had a certain amount of sovereignty, the exact extent of such sovereignty as well as the place of tribes within the federal system has remained ill-defined. This Article examines what has been the role of the Supreme Court in integrating Indian nations as the third Sovereign within our federalist system. The Article accomplishes this task by examining the Court’s Indian law record in the last 30 years. The comprehensive survey of …

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 …

Akiachak Native Community V. United States Department Of Interior, Lillian M. Alvernaz

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Alaska Native Tribes have long been classified differently than the federally recognized Indian tribes in the rest of the country. The Akiachak decision contributes to the shifting treatment of Alaska Native Tribes and clarifies their relationship with the federal government. The ability to put land into trust is essential to the protection of generations to come and the exercise of sovereign authority. By enabling Alaska Native tribes the ability to petition to put tribally owned fee land in trust, the DOI promotes and encourages tribal self-governance and empowerment.

Indigenizing Equality, M. Alexander Pearl, Kyle Velte

Faculty Articles

Notwithstanding the significant victories of the LGBT civil rights movement over the past 20 years, culminating in the declaration of full marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges, anti-LGBT sentiment generally, and anti-marriage-equality sentiment in particular, continue to run deep. One pocket of resistance is in some tribal communities. While Obergefell unequivocally resolved the problem of the “patchwork quilt” of marriage equality among the states, the problem of gaps in marriage equality among Tribal Nations has left the problem of the “patchwork quilt” intact. This article answers the question: What is the effect of federal marriage equality on the modern expression …

Traditional Problems: Gay Marriage And The Backlash Against Indian Sovereignty, Marcia A. Yablon-Zug

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Traditional Problems: How Tribal Same-Sex Marriage Bans Threaten Tribal Sovereignty, Marcia Zug

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Close To Zero: The Reliance On Minimum Blood Quantum Requirements To Eliminate Tribal Citizenship In The Allotment Acts And The Post-Adoptive Couple Challenges To The Constitutionality Of Icwa, Abi Fain, Mary Kathryn Nagle

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

Maxwell, Lewis V. Clarke, And The Trail Around Tribal Sovereign Immunity, Allison Hester

University of Colorado Law Review

Tribal sovereign immunity is an important tool available to American Indian tribes as they have rebuilt, restructured, and rejuvenated their communities in the era of Self- Determination following centuries of colonialism, land grabs, and cultural genocide. Sovereign immunity protects tribes by establishing a barrier to both trampling of tribal sovereignty through non-tribal courts and costly adverse judgments. Recent precedent from the Ninth Circuit has weakened tribal sovereign immunity. Maxwell v. County of San Diego, pivoting from previous decisions, held that tribal employees can be sued individually for money damages for actions taken in the course and scope of their employmentas …

United States V. Washington, Kirsa Shelkey

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Pacific Northwest Treaties, now known as the Stevens Treaties, were negotiated in the 1850’s between the U.S. and Indian tribes, including the Suquamish Indian Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam, Lower Elwha Band of Klallams, Port Gamble Clallam, Nisqually Indian Tribe, Nooksack Tribe, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe, Upper Skagit Tribe, Tulalip Tribes, Lummi Indian Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, Puyallup Tribe, Hoh Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, Quileute Indian Tribe, Makah Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (“Tribes”). The Stevens Treaties stated that “the right of taking fish, …

Recentering Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction, Addie C. Rolnick

Scholarly Works

The boundaries of modern tribal criminal jurisdiction are defined by a handful of clear rules—such as a limit on sentence length and a categorical prohibition against prosecuting most non-Indians—and many grey areas in which neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has specifically addressed a particular question. This Article discusses five of the grey areas: whether tribes retain concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute major crimes, whether tribes affected by Public Law 280 retain concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute a full range of crimes, whether tribes may prosecute Indians who are not citizens of any tribe, whether tribes may prosecute their own citizens for …

Plenary Power, Political Questions, And Sovereignty In Indian Affairs, Michalyn Steele

Faculty Scholarship

A generation of Indian law scholars has roundly, and rightly, criticized the Supreme Court’s invocation of the political question doctrine to deprive tribes of meaningful judicial review when Congress has acted to the detriment of tribes. Similarly, many Indian law scholars view the plenary power doctrine — that Congress has expansive, virtually unlimited authority to regulate tribes — as a tool that fosters and formalizes the legal oppression of Indian people by an unchecked Federal government. The way courts have applied these doctrines in tandem has frequently left tribes without meaningful judicial recourse against breaches of the federal trust responsibility …

It’S Rooted In The Land: How Managing Natural Resources Leads Native American Tribes To Sovereignty, Nicky Ouellet

Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers

Tribal management of land and natural resources within the boundaries of Native American reservations is often superseded by state and federal policy. But control of land and resources is, ultimately, what makes a nation a nation. The three stories in this portfolio depict tribes establishing control of natural resources to various degrees of success. Chapter one is a narrative outlining the stories, my reportage and plans for publication. Chapter two: Members of the Northern Cheyenne seek to establish a medical marijuana program after the federal government relaxed enforcement of cannabis bans. Chapter three: An activist on the Fort Berthold reservation …

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 Authority To Protect Water Resources And Reserved Rights Under Clean Water Act Section 401, Paula Goodman Maccabee

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tribal Strategies For Protecting And Preserving Groundwater, Stephen V. Quesenberry, Timothy C. Seward, Adam P. Bailey

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Misadventures In Indian Law: The Supreme Court's Patchak Decision, Anna O'Brien

University of Colorado Law Review

"After today, any person may sue under the Administrative Procedure Act . .. to divest the Federal Government of title to and possession of land held in trust for Indian tribes . . . so long as the complaint does not assert a personal interest in the land.' - Justice Sotomayor, dissenting in Match-E-Be-Nash- She- Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak. Ever since European colonization of the Americas began in the fifteenth century, there has been friction between the new arrivals and the native inhabitants. The United States has dealt with its "Indian problem" through assimilation, reservations, and eventually, …

Comparative Institutional Competency And Sovereignty In Indian Affairs, Michalyn Steele

University of Colorado Law Review

While vigorous debate surrounds the proper scope and ambit of inherent tribal authority, there remains a critical antecedent question: whether Congress or the courts are ultimately best situated to define the contours of inherent tribal authority. In February 2013, Congress enacted controversial tribal jurisdiction provisions as part of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization recognizing and affirming inherent tribal authority to prosecute all persons, including non-Indian offenders, for crimes of domestic violence in Indian country. This assertion by Congress of its authority to set the bounds of tribal inherent authority-beyond where the United States Supreme Court has held tribal inherent …

Comparative Institutional Competency And Sovereignty In Indian Affairs, Michalyn Steele

Faculty Scholarship

While vigorous debate surrounds the proper scope and ambit of inherent tribal authority, there remains a critical antecedent question: whether Congress or the courts are ultimately best situated to define the contours of inherent tribal authority. In February 2013, Congress enacted controversial tribal jurisdiction provisions as part of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization recognizing and affirming inherent tribal authority to prosecute all persons, including non-Indian offenders, for crimes of domestic violence in Indian country. This assertion by Congress of its authority to set the bounds of tribal inherent authority -- beyond where the United States Supreme Court has held …

Symposium Introduction, M. Alexander Pearl

Other Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Law, Violence, And The Neurotic Structure Of American Indian Law, Sarah Krakoff

Publications

No abstract provided.

Red Law, White Supremacy: Cherokee Freedmen, Tribal Sovereignty, And The Colonial Feedback Loop, Jeremiah Chin

Articles

Sovereignty and self-determination are cornerstones of arguments for Indigenous rights in the geographic United States. Both concepts assert an existence as Indigenous peoples, and reinforce status as nations with citizens and governments, rights and responsibilities, determined by Indigenous communities. In 2006, the Judicial Appeals Tribunal of the Cherokee Nation recognized that Lucy Allen and fellow Cherokee Freedmen, descendants of African slaves once owned by Cherokee, are citizens of the Cherokee Nation and had been citizens of the Cherokee Nation since the 1866 treaty with the United States. Less than a year later, the Cherokee Nation amended its constitution to limit …

Never Construed To Their Prejudice: In Honor Of David Getches, Richard B. Collins

University of Colorado Law Review

This article reviews and analyzes the judicial canons of construction for Native American treaties and statutes. It discusses their theoretical justifications and practical applications. It concludes that the treaty canon has ready support in contract law and the law of treaty interpretation. Justification of the statutory canon is more challenging and could be strengthened by attention to the democratic deficit when Congress imposes laws on Indian country. Applications of the canons have mattered in disputes between Indian nations and private or state interests. They have made much less difference, and have suffered major failings, in disputes with the federal government. …

Remarks Of David H. Getches: Federal Bar Association Indian Law Conference (April 7, 2011), David H. Getches

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Most Grievous Display Of Behavior: Self-Decimation In Indian Country, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

Vine Deloria, Jr., the greatest indigenous philosopher of his day, wrote Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto in 1969. It was a spirited polemic that both galvanized and inspired Native peoples at home and abroad. Simultaneously, the book's powerful and trenchant words sent shock waves through non-Indian society. Deloria articulated a resurgent indigenous-centered understanding of sovereignty that had largely been suppressed by federal policy and law for nearly a century. Why did he emphasize the word "sovereignty"? Because he knew that Native nations needed to employ such concepts since they were familiar to both federal and state …

The Indian States Of America: Parallel Universes & Overlapping Sovereignty, Joseph William Singer

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Never Construed To Their Prejudice: In Honor Of David Getches, Richard B. Collins

Publications

This article reviews and analyzes the judicial canons of construction for Native American treaties and statutes. It discusses their theoretical justifications and practical applications. It concludes that the treaty canon has ready support in contract law and the law of treaty interpretation. Justification of the statutory canon is more challenging and could be strengthened by attention to the democratic deficit when Congress imposes laws on Indian country. Applications of the canons have mattered in disputes between Indian nations and private or state interests. They have made much less difference, and have suffered major failings, in disputes with the federal government. …