Public Interest Commons^™

Advocacy Matters, Richard Collins

American Indian Law Journal

The Supreme Court’s 2022 Castro-Huerta decision was wrong on the points it discussed. It was doubly wrong for a reason it ignored. But the latter error was shared because all briefs and the dissenting opinion ignored it as well. The question presented was whether a nineteenth-century federal Indian country statute provided for exclusive federal jurisdiction over interracial crimes, or for concurrent authority with states. The Court held that the statute allowed concurrent jurisdiction. But it ignored the fact that Congress and the Court, until fairly recently, avoided concurrent federal-state jurisdiction over crimes. Had the self-styled originalist Justices taken their theory …

Stability At Stake: The Effects Of Overturning Chevron On Indian Gaming, Evan Callahan

American Indian Law Journal

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright to overturn Chevron Deference marks a significant change in administrative law and could have drastic consequences for the regulation of Indian gaming in the United States. This Note explores the implications of such a shift, emphasizing the importance of maintaining stability in the highly regulated gaming industry. Many stakeholders, including operators, investors, regulatory agencies, and patrons, may face significant uncertainty without doctrines such as Chevron Deference. Without agency expertise in interpreting statutes, the Court may instead directly influence the regulation of Indian gaming in the United States, presenting challenges and uncertainties for all …

Reading Between The Treaties: Why The Supreme Court Must Honor The Indian Canons Of Construction, Amelia R. Wimmer

American Indian Law Journal

This Note critically examines the Indian canons of construction as interpretive tools employed by the United States Supreme Court in cases involving treaties and statutes with Tribal Nations. Ultimately tracing their origins to Worcester v. Georgia, this Note explores how the Indian canons were designed to protect tribal sovereignty, ensure the liberal construction of ambiguous provisions in favor of tribes, and prevent the abrogation of tribal land and rights. Shifts in interpretive philosophy and the rise of textualism have led to a checkered application of the Indian canons across courts. However, a continued application of the Indian canons is necessary …

The Federal Trust ​​​Responsibility ​And Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction: Restoring Justice In Tribal Nations​​​ ​, Sofia Sallas

American Indian Law Journal

Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ), enacted through the Violence Against Women Act, was designed to address jurisdictional gaps that long allowed non-Indian perpetrators of domestic violence in Indian Country to evade accountability. Yet despite restoring Tribal authority, SDVCJ remains significantly under-implemented. This Note argues that this failure is not merely a policy shortcoming, but a legal one. Congress restored Tribal criminal jurisdiction while conditioning its exercise on federal funding, coordination, and institutional support. Federal agencies, however, have failed to provide the consistent infrastructure necessary for SDVCJ to function in practice. These failures breach the federal trust responsibility, which imposes …

Table Of Contents

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Tribal Nations As Lords Of The Fee: A Common Law Argument For Tribal Discretion In Spending Federal Forfeiture Funds, Kent A. Anderson

American Indian Law Journal

Federal criminal forfeiture is a powerful tool meeting at the nexus of criminal law and property law. Courts justify its use based on its English common law history. After seizing and selling assets, the federal government doles out payments from its Assets Forfeiture Fund to cooperating law enforcement agencies through equitable sharing agreements that bind recipients to use funds for law enforcement purposes. Tribal Nations have compelling legal and policy arguments for their entitlement to greater access to and discretion over forfeiture funds obtained through seizures in Indian country. These legal arguments are grounded in: (1) federal criminal forfeiture’s failure …

September 2024 – August 2025 Case Law On American Indians, Thomas P. Schlosser

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Why The Library Of Congress Matters More Than Ever, Hope O'Keeffe

Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental, & Innovation Law

No abstract provided.

Leveraging Citizen Science To Advance Environmental Justice In Climate-Vulnerable Communities Post-Loper Bright, Lauren Valli

Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental, & Innovation Law

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v.

Raimondo removed the judicial obligation to defer to the Environmental

Protection Agency’s statutory interpretations, overturning forty years of

Chevron v. NRDC jurisprudence. Now, generalist judges must

independently evaluate complex scientific data when determining

statutory meaning, creating the risk that well-resourced industry parties

will use their litigation advantages to secure pollution-permissive statutory

interpretations. Without deference to EPA’s technical understanding and

public welfare considerations, environmental litigation outcomes

increasingly depend on which party can most persuasively present

environmental data in court. This interpretation shift widens the

environmental enforcement gap and disproportionately harms historically …

Volume 14 Masthead

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Unconstitutional Impact Of Anti-Transgender Legislation On Native Hawaiians, Aaliah Moi-Matsumoto

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.