Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons^™

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 …

Preservation Ethics In The Case Of Nebraska's Nationally Registered Historic Properties, Darren Michael Adams

Department of Geography: Dissertations, Theses, and Student Research

This dissertation focuses on the National Register of Historic Places and considers the geographical implications of valuing particular historic sites over others. Certain historical sites will either gain or lose desirability from one era to the next, this dissertation identifies and explains three unique preservation ethical eras, and it maps the sites which were selected during those eras. These eras are the Settlement Era (1966–1975), the Commercial Architecture Era (1976–1991), and the Progressive Planning Era (1992–2010). The findings show that transformations in the program included an early phase when state authorities listed historical resources pertaining to the settlement of the …

In Re Est. Of Sure Chief, No. 2009-P-20 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Jul. 1, 2010)., Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

Court of Appeals held that petitioner could not appeal the appointment of personal representative for her mother’s estate until she had exhausted her remedies at the Lower Court “with verification of how her rights have been violated.”

Baselines Newsletter, No. 6, Summer/Fall 2010, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Baselines: The Natural Resources Law Center Newsletter (2007-2011)

No abstract provided.

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.

Have American Indians Been Written Out Of The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Jessica M. Wiles

Montana Law Review

Written out of RFRA

Acknowledging America’S First Sovereign: Incorporating Tribal Justice Systems Into The Legal Research And Writing Curriculum, Samantha A. Moppett

Suffolk University Law School Faculty Works

Marie Setian (Marie) drove to Foxwoods Resort Casino in Ledyard, Connecticut, with her husband and another couple for a day of gambling, dining, and entertainment. After gambling for a little while, the couples went to the Festival Buffet. At the buffet’s seafood station, Marie placed some shrimp on her plate. As she walked to the international station, her left foot slipped on something, and she fell to the floor. As a result of the fall, Marie experienced soreness, swelling, and discomfort in her knee. Eventually, she underwent surgery and participated in extensive physical therapy. Her knee will never be the …

Agency Culture And Conflict: Federal Implementation Of The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act By The National Indian Gaming Commission, The Bureau Of Indian Affairs, And The Department Of Justice, Kevin Washburn

Faculty Scholarship

Indian gaming provides a lens through which to consider the implications of divided federal executive power. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is implemented by at least three federal agencies, each of which has somewhat different interests. Moreover, none of these agencies is monolithic and each must reconcile competing interests within its own domain. In examining the culture of three federal agencies, the author seeks to shed light on divided executive branch governance. The article briefly addresses three different issues: the 'independence' of an independent agency, the NIGC, which lacks litigating authority; the problem with shared subject matter jurisdiction by DOJ …

In Re Evanson, No. 2009-J-033, 2009-Ap-06 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Jun. 22, 2010)., Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s dismissal of a child custody case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the Blackfeet Family Code limits the Court’s jurisdiction only to those children who reside on the Blackfeet Reservation, which Evanson did not.

In Re Mh, A Minor Child, 2009-Ap-05 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., June 16, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, in a custody petition filed by the grandmother, the Court determined that the lower court violated the grandmothers due process rights by not allowing the grandmother to present testimony, thus determining custody based on hearsay evidence. The case is remanded back to the lower court for a new hearing.

After Buffalo V. Burd, 2010-Ap-06 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Jun. 15, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court overturned the lower court’s reward of alimony, finding that Blackfeet Tribal Code does not have a law regarding alimony. The Court also dismissed a restraining order because there was nothing in the pleading to substantiate the need for a restraining order and the lower court did not hold a hearing regarding it.

In Re Marriage Of Blackman And Blackman, 2008-Ca-100 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Jun. 15, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court held that Blackfeet Law and Order Code, Chapter 11 only allows appeal from final judgment. Because no final judgment had been rendered by the lower court, the appeal was without merit.

Tribe V. Marceau, 2010-Ap-05 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Jun. 15, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In a brief order, the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals held that the Tribe could not appeal the trial court judge’s verdict of not guilty due to lack of evidence. The Court cited to Chapter 11 Sec. 11-A of the Blackfeet Tribal Law and Order Code, which limits the circumstances in which the Tribe can appeal in a criminal case. Sec. 11-B, which outlines the circumstances when the Tribe can appeal in a criminal case, does not provide that the Tribe can appeal a not guilty verdict.

Tribe V. Pepion, 2010-J-308 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Jun. 15, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court found that the Tribe had repeatedly violated the rights of Pepion, a minor, and had not followed the Blackfeet Family Code. The Court voided any outstanding probation obligations of Pepion.

Anderson V. Campos, 2010-Ap-01 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., June 15, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court reaffirmed that pre-mature appeals, where the petitioner did not exhaust remedies at the lower court, will not be heard, absent extraordinary circumstances. If the lower court refuses petitioners' motion, then they have the opportunity for recourse through the appellate process.

Tribe V. Rides At The Door, 2009-Ap-14 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., May 26, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court dismissed a criminal prosecution for lack of Speedy Trial after the Tribal Court Chief Clerks Office twice failed to convene a jury and the 180-day presumption of Speedy Trial elapsed. The Clerk spoke to the Defendant and erroneously informed them that the trial was reset. The Defendant failed to appear. No jury trial was subsequently convened. (See also Tribe v. Mad Plume, 93-AP-08 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., May 20, 1993); Tribe v. Mancha, 91-AP-03 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 1991))

Tribe V. Gobert, 2009-C-1143 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., May 19, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court granted a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. The Defendant claimed his right to due process was denied under the Blackfeet Laws and Order Code. The Court found that the Tribe failed to respond to the Defendant’s appeal.

Wide Right: Why The Ncaa's Policy On The American Indian Mascot Issue Misses The Mark, André Douglas Pond Cummings

Law Faculty Scholarship

Of the many civil rights and social justice issues that continue to cloud United States race relations, one persists in dividing parties: the use of American Indian mascots and imagery by collegiate and professional athletic teams. Scholars and academics weigh in annually on this divisive issue, while certain university administration officials vigorously defend continued use of Native American mascots and monikers at their institutions. Across the United States, various university officials and alumni debate the continued use of mascots such as the “Fighting Sioux,” the “Running Utes” and “Chief Illiniwek.”

In a broader context, the mistreatment and abuse of American …

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 …