Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons^™

The Indian Child Welfare Act, Political Classification Of “Indians,” And Preservation Of Tribal Sovereignty: Children, The Most Precious Resource, Rachel Yost

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Oklahoma V. Castro-Huerta: Oklahoma’S Latest Power Grab And Its Implications For Native Women In A Post-Roe World, Camryn A. Conroy

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Note On Navajo Nation V. Urban Outfitters, Inc., Brantly J. Stockton

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unprincipled Preemption: Why The Supreme Court Was Wrong In Oklahoma V. Castro-Huerta To Abandon Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Over Crimes By Non-Indians Against Indians In Indian Country, Eric Ramoutar

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Removing The Stain Without Undermining Military Awards: Revoking Medals Earned At Wounded Knee Creek In 1890, Dwight S. Mears

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Front Pages

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Poor Is Poor Enough? How Jurisdictional Differences In Implementing The Right To Counsel Affect Indigent Native Americans, J. Santana Spangler-Day

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Benefit Corporations—A Tool For Economic Development And Fostering Sovereignty In Tribal Business Structures, Madelynn M. Dancer

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Amplified Federal Obligation: Why Dobbs V. Jackson Women’S Health Organization Amplifies The Federal Government’S Obligation To Provide Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care In Native American Communities, Rebecca M. Kamp

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Oklahoma V. Castro-Huerta—Using Sentencing Inequities To Address The Oliphant In The Room, Dillon M. Sullivan

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Tribal Court Blueprint For The Choctaw Freedmen: Effect Of Cherokee Nation V. Nash, Leeann Littlejohn

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Corporate Law In The Global South: Heterodox Stakeholderism, Mariana Pargendler

Seattle University Law Review

How do the corporate laws of Global South jurisdictions differ from their Global North counterparts? Prevailing stereotypes depict the corporate laws of developing countries as either antiquated or plagued by problems of enforcement and misfit despite formal convergence. This Article offers a different view by showing how Global South jurisdictions have pioneered heterodox stakeholder approaches in corporate law, such as the erosion of limited liability for purposes of stakeholder protection in Brazil and India, the adoption of mandatory corporate social responsibility in Indonesia and India, and the large-scale program of Black corporate ownership and empowerment in South Africa, among many …

Stakeholder Capitalism’S Greatest Challenge: Reshaping A Public Consensus To Govern A Global Economy, Leo E. Strine Jr., Michael Klain

Seattle University Law Review

The Berle XIV: Developing a 21st Century Corporate Governance Model Conference asks whether there is a viable 21st Century Stakeholder Governance model. In our conference keynote article, we argue that to answer that question yes requires restoring—to use Berle’s term—a “public consensus” throughout the global economy in favor of the balanced model of New Deal capitalism, within which corporations could operate in a way good for all their stakeholders and society, that Berle himself supported.

The world now faces problems caused in large part by the enormous international power of corporations and the institutional investors who dominate their governance. These …

Stakeholder Governance As Governance By Stakeholders, Brett Mcdonnell

Seattle University Law Review

Much debate within corporate governance today centers on the proper role of corporate stakeholders, such as employees, customers, creditors, suppliers, and local communities. Scholars and reformers advocate for greater attention to stakeholder interests under a variety of banners, including ESG, sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and stakeholder governance. So far, that advocacy focuses almost entirely on arguing for an expanded understanding of corporate purpose. It argues that corporate governance should be for various stakeholders, not shareholders alone.

This Article examines and approves of that broadened understanding of corporate purpose. However, it argues that we should understand stakeholder governance as extending well …

Stakeholder Governance On The Ground (And In The Sky), Stephen Johnson, Frank Partnoy

Seattle University Law Review

Professor Frank Partnoy: This is a marvelous gathering, and it is all due to Chuck O’Kelley and the special gentleness, openness, and creativity that he brings to this symposium. For more than a decade, he has been open to new and creative ways to discuss important issues surrounding business law and Adolf Berle’s legacy. We also are grateful to Dorothy Lund for co-organizing this gathering.

In introducing Stephen Johnson, I am reminded of a previous Berle, where Chuck allowed me some time to present the initial thoughts that led to my book, WAIT: The Art and Science of Delay. Part …

The Structure Of Corporate Law Revolutions, William Savitt

Seattle University Law Review

Since, call it 1970, corporate law has operated under a dominant conception of governance that identifies profit-maximization for stockholder benefit as the purpose of the corporation. Milton Friedman’s essay The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits, published in September of that year, provides a handy, if admittedly imprecise, marker for the coronation of the shareholder-primacy paradigm. In the decades that followed, corporate law scholars pursued an ever-narrowing research agenda with the purpose and effect of confirming the shareholder-primacy paradigm. Corporate jurisprudence followed a similar path, slowly at first and later accelerating, to discover in the precedents and …

A History Of Corporate Law Federalism In The Twentieth Century, William W. Bratton

Seattle University Law Review

This Article describes the emergence of corporate law federalism across a long twentieth century. The period begins with New Jersey’s successful initiation of charter competition in 1888 and ends with the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. The federalism in question describes the interrelation of state and federal regulation of corporate internal affairs. This Article takes a positive approach, pursuing no normative bottom line. It makes six observations: (1) the federalism describes a division of subject matter, with internal affairs regulated by the states and securities issuance and trading regulated by the federal government; (2) the federalism is an …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

How To Interpret The Securities Laws?, Zachary J. Gubler

Seattle University Law Review

In discussions of the federal securities laws, the SEC usually gets most of the attention. This makes some sense. After all, it is the agency charged with administrating the securities laws and regulating the industry as a whole. It makes the majority of the laws; it engages in enforcement actions; it reacts to crises; and it, or sometimes even its individual commissioners, intervene publicly in policy debates. Often overlooked in such discussion, however, is the role of the Supreme Court in shaping securities law, and a new book by Adam Pritchard and Robert Thompson demonstrates why this is an oversight. …