Here is the opinion in United States v. Lynn.
Briefs:
SCOTUS Confirms Constitutional Birthright Citizenship Right over Four Dissenters
Here is the opinion in Trump v. Barbara.
One excerpt, suggesting Indians are like diplomats, what I’ve been saying all along, dammit:
Another, more explicitly, on Indians as diplomats:
Another on the government’s ridiculousness re: Elk v. Wilkins:
From Justice Jackson’s concurrence, the only intellectually honest opinion from this rat’s nest of white supremacy:
On why birthright citizenship is an issue in 2026:
On the Indian Citizenship Act:
The possible seeds for an undoing of the contemptible Elk v. Wilkins decision, which also rested on Dred Scott:
Justice Thomas’ dissent (the principal dissent) waxed on and on about “tribal Indians,” leading (I suggest) to at least two conclusions: (1) the United States does not have the power to tax “tribal Indians”; (2) the right of tribal self-government derives from international customary law (here comes UNDRIP!); and (3) Elk is wrong:
More Elk is wrong fodder:
More on Elk, though in reliance this time:
On the Indian Citizenship Act:
Wha?? China is less or equally alien than the Cherokee Nation?
“Tribal Indians” in same category as diplomats and “hostile alien occupiers” — this is getting weird:
Nothing from me on Kavanaugh or Alito, who don’t merit attention.
New Mexico COA Decides Lopez v. Buffalo Thunder Development Authority
California Federal Court Orders California Firm Suing California Tribe to Show Cause as to Federal Court Jurisdiction
Here are the new materials in Farella Braun + Martel LLP v. Guidiville Rancheria of California (N.D. Cal.):
Prior post here.
Oklahoma SCT Materials on Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Writ of Prohibition Case
UCLA Native Nations Law & Policy Center: “250 Years As ‘Merciless Indian Savages’: Native Nations and the United States”
Here:
Eighth Circuit Rejects Equal Protection Challenge to Nebraska Museum Admissions Fee
Eighth Circuit Excuses Cops Who Shot Pipeline Protester, Then Laughed, From Accountability
Paul Spruhan on the Legal History of Slavery in the Reconstruction Southwest
Paul Spruhan has posted “The Unfulfilled Liberation: The Navajo Nation, the Federal Government and the Legal History of Indian Slavery in the Reconstruction Southwest” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
The article discusses the legal history of enslavement of American Indians, particularly Navajos, in territorial New Mexico during the Civil War and Reconstruction. It focuses Indian slavery within the relationship between the Navajo Nation and the Federal Government from 1846 to 1877, spanning the federal occupation of New Mexico in the Mexican-American War to the end of Reconstruction. It discusses in detail the role of the Army, the Office of Indian Affairs, and Congress in declaring the legal emancipation of Navajos and other Indian slaves but failing in implementing true liberation. It also discusses the role of the slavery issue in the negotiations and implementation of the Navajo Treaty of 1868, and the failure of General William Tecumseh Sherman and other federal officials to liberate Navajo slaves after the execution of the Treaty and the return of Navajos to their homeland. The article concludes with a discussion of why the Federal government tolerated the continued existence of Navajo slavery despite the end of southern slavery, and its place in the longer arc of federal assimilation policies against Indian people.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.