Blast from the Past: 1979 Federal Report on the History of the Trust Responsibility . . . Cribbed from Vine Deloria Report

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Brief History of the Trust ResponsibilityDownload

New Scholarship on Indian Status Cases in North Carolina

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Daniel G. Sullivan has published “When You’re Just Not “Indian” Enough: The Erosion of Tribal Sovereignty in State v. Nobles and the Case for Deference to Tribes on Questions of Indian Status” in the North Carolina Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

Under the Major Crimes Act, Tribes and the federal government have exclusive jurisdiction over certain “major crimes” committed by an “Indian” in “Indian Country.” In 2012, George Nobles—a “First Descendant” of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians—was arrested for robbery and murder on the tribal trust lands of the Eastern Band. Defined by Cherokee law, First Descendants have at least one parent who is a tribal member but are themselves one generation short of the Tribe’s blood quantum requirement for membership. At the time of Nobles’s arrest, First Descendants were recognized by the Eastern Band as “Indian” under Cherokee common and statutory law. Thus, under the Major Crimes Act, only the Eastern Band or the federal government should have been able to prosecute Nobles. Both crimes were “major,” both took place in Indian Country, and Nobles—as a First Descendant—was Indian.

But in State v. Nobles, the Supreme Court of North Carolina concluded that Nobles was just not Indian enough and authorized state jurisdiction. And in doing so, the court overrode a determination that was the Tribe’s to make. State v. Nobles contradicts fundamental precepts of federal Indian law and strikes at the sovereignty of the Eastern Band and similarly-situated Tribes. Where Indian status refers to the political relationship between an individual and a particular Tribe, that Tribe must have the final word on questions of Indian status. Part I of this Comment introduces State v. Nobles and explores Indian Country jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act. Part II sets forth three principles of federal Indian law against which the facts of Nobles must be viewed and argues that these principles demand deference to Tribes on Indian status. Part III uses these principles to discuss the errors in Nobles. Lastly, Part IV argues that deference to Tribes on Indian status is necessary for robust tribal sovereignty and proposes a more cabined use of the “Rogers test” for Indian status consistent with that understanding.

Tenth Circuit Allows IGRA Suit by Comanche against Fort Sill to Proceed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Comanche Nation v. Ware.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

Ninth Circuit Rejects Federal En Banc Petition in Sho-Ban v. DOI but Some Judges Have Thoughts

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order and accompanying, dueling opinions in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Dept. of the Interior.

En banc stage briefs:

US En Banc Petition

Tribal Response to En Banc Petition

Panel materials here.

Tenth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Indian Status in Indian Country Crimes Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. King.

Briefs:

Appellant Brief.PDFDownload
Federal Answer Brief.pdfDownload
Reply.pdfDownload

Indian Peaks Band Files to Protect Tribal Water Rights

Matthew Campbell

On April 1, 2026, the Indian Peaks Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition for Stay with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s March 2, 2026, approval of the Pine Valley Water Supply Project.

The filing seeks review of BLM’s decision authorizing a large‑scale groundwater extraction and pipeline project in southern Utah and asks the IBLA to stay the project approvals while the appeal is pending. The Band argues that the decision violates federal law, including the National Environmental Policy Act, and unlawfully threatens the Band’s federally reserved water rights and culturally significant resources.

You can see more here.

Patrice Kunesh (Brookings) Report on ICE Detentions of Indian People in the US

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Patrice Kunesh of the Brookings Institute has posted “Native Americans are getting swept up in immigration raids. Homeland Security Secretary Mullin has an opportunity to fix it.”

New Scholarship on Bordertowns and the Bad Men Clauses

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Taylor Graham has published “Bad Men in the Bordertown” in the New Mexico Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

In nine treaties signed by Tribal Nations and the United States between 1867 and 1868, the United States promised redress to Native Americans for wrongs committed against them by “bad men among the whites.” Today, Native Americans are more likely to be killed by police than any other group, with much of this violence concentrated near the borders of Tribal Nations. Although claims brought under the “bad men” treaty clauses offer an avenue for combatting this epidemic of violence, courts have begun interpreting the clauses to apply only when “wrongs” occur within Tribal boundaries. This article argues that the territoriality of the bad men clauses should be read broadly to encompass violence committed outside of Tribal boundaries to address the disproportionate police violence against Native Americans that occurs there.

Treaty Waters At Risk: Happening Now

Angie Sanchez

President Whitney Gravelle, Bay Mills Indian Community delivering her keynote address “The Battle of the Black Snake: Line 5 and Tribal Treaty Rights” at the Treaty Waters At Risk: Tribal Sovereignty and the Line 5 Challenge in the Great Lakes conference. Held at the MSU College of Law’s Castle Board Room, East Lansing, MI. Several panelists today offering a wealth of information. There’s still time left to join us for the afternoon panels!