Neoshia Roemer on the Government’s Converging Claims to Control Citizenship and Women’s Reproductive Rights

Here is the abstract:

Almost immediately after taking office on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship Executive Order. This Order limits birthright citizenship based on the immigration status of a child’s parents. This Article posits this is an Executive attempt to limit which families reproduce in ways that are beyond state power. If the government can limit birthright citizenship on the grounds it proposes, it effectively controls citizen making—which is to take control of the family. If we are to believe any myth about our constitutional republic, a long held truth is that the family maintains the right to reproduce on its own terms, not the government’s. The people choose their government, not the other way around.

Through barely coded language that reproduces racist and nativist attitudes, the Order attempts to control the reproduction of citizenship by imagining and excluding the mythical “illegal” immigrant to handpick who becomes a citizen. With this understanding, this Article situates this issue on the axes of constitutional law and reproductive justice, discussing efforts to limit birthright citizenship as a matter targeting select families. This Article proposes a “constitutional rights plus” framework that demonstrates the reproductive rights of the parent and the child’s right to citizenship are linked and inseparable. This is an attack on the entire family to control which families produce citizens. Utilizing the reproductive justice framework, this Article argues that the Executive Order reproduces citizenship in four ways. First, by reifying the bounds of who constitutes a family, the Order reproduces family discrimination. Second, the Order reconstructs the noncitizen regime of Dred Scott that would effectively render some children stateless and open to exploitation. Third, the Order reproduces family punishment and subordination by ensuring some families are punished for existing and remain subordinated through labor regimes. Fourth, the Order reproduces poverty as it locks families and children into a regime of cyclical poverty that they cannot escape.

North Carolina COA in Catawba Sovereign Immunity Matter

Here are the materials so far in Kings Mountain Land Development Partners LLC v. Catawba Indian Nation:

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Suprerior Court Order

Guidiville Rancheria Sues to Stop $5M Arbitration Claims

Here is the complaint in Guidiville Rancheria of California v. Bluerock Real Estate Holdings LLC (N.D. Cal.):

Ninth Circuit Materials in Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians v. Bondi

Here are the briefs:

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

State Amicus Brief

Reply

Oral argument:

Lower court materials here.

Tribal Law Journal Call for Papers

TLJ is inviting scholarly, practitioner, and student submissions addressing legal issues affecting tribal nations and their internal justice systems. Contributions may include tribal court case comments, reflections on tribal systems, the development of tribal law, the value of tribal law, interviews, and teachings. Submissions are due by August 31, 2026, and chosen work will be published by Spring 2027

Tribal Amicus Brief in Enbridge Energy L.P. v. Nessel

Here:

Enbridge gives zero fucks about this sacred place.

New Mexico COA Affirms Enforcement of Forum Selection Clause Selecting Navajo Courts

Here is the unpublished opinion in Anchorbilt Inc. v. Arviso Construction Company Inc.:

Flying T v. Stillaguamish Cert Petition [Immovable Property Exception to Sovereign Immunity]

Here is the petition in Flying T Ranch Inc. v. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians:

Question presented:

Under the immovable-property rule, may a party sue an Indian tribe, without the latter’s consent, in a State court to quiet title to real property located in that State but which is not within the boundaries of the tribe’s reservation and is not held in trust by the United States?

Lower court materials here.

40th Annual Coming Together of Peoples Conference, March 19-21, 2026 @ UWisconsin Law School

New Student Scholarship on Rule 19, Tribal Immunity, and Indian Gaming Cases

Marissa Uri has published “Rule 19 and Tribal Representation in Indian Gaming Litigation” in the Stanford Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

Since 1988, when Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) into law, many Indian tribes have established gaming as a vital source of economic and political sovereignty. The process envisioned by IGRA, however, has allowed private actors to challenge tribal gaming operations by suing state and federal entities that negotiate the gaming operations with the tribes, rather than the tribes themselves. These third parties have succeeded in legal challenges enjoining tribal gaming without ever making the operating tribe a party to the suit.

Tribes, protected by the well-established doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity, frequently intervene in these suits under Rule 19, arguing that their inability to be joined necessitates dismissal of the case. An emerging disagreement among federal circuit courts underscores the procedural and practical difficulties that courts face in weighing these interests, particularly in assessing whether existing federal or state defendants can adequately represent absent tribal interests such that the case can proceed “in equity and good conscience.” This Note argues that consistent with the deference under Rule 19 case law accorded to other sovereigns, there should be a presumption of dismissal when tribes cannot be joined in discrete gaming challenges due to tribal sovereign immunity. In doing so, this Note examines Indian gaming challenges as a unique form of Administrative Procedure Act litigation and catalogs where federal, state, and tribal gaming interests diverge, underscoring why this divergence poses significant legal and practical threats to tribal sovereignty in a budding area of contemporary Indian law.