Here is the opinion in Vipond v. DeGroat.
Brief:
Lower court materials here.
Geoffrey Heeren on Plenary Power and the Supremacy Clause
Geoffrey Heeren has posted “Native Nations, Noncitizens, and the Supremacy Clause,” forthcoming in the Brooklyn Law Review, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
Native Nations and noncitizens have often prevailed in the face of adverse state action by asserting treaty rights, arguing that state actions are preempted by federal authority, or relying on federal common law. These claims are largely rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, rather than Native Nations’ or noncitizens’ rights of their own. At the same time, the Supremacy Clause jurisprudence that developed as Native Nations and noncitizens raised these claims coincided with the growth of federal “plenary power” in both areas, depriving immigrants and Native Nations of strong rights of their own when faced with federal action.
The Supreme Court’s approach to the Supremacy Clause in immigration and federal Indian law is inconsistent with the textualist and originalist method preferred by its majority. Existing scholarship has extensively examined the Supremacy Clause through a textualist lens, but has not addressed federal Indian law and immigration law. This is a particularly stark omission since much Supremacy Clause litigation centers on the experience of Native Nations and noncitizens. This article offers a new framework for Supremacy arguments in Immigration and federal Indian law. Under a textualist reading of the Supremacy Clause, the Court should alter its doctrine concerning self-executing treaties, return to an approach grounded in the inherent sovereignty of Native Nations rather than federal common law, and abandon its strongest form of “plenary power preemption.”
Finally, the article situates these supremacy claims within the larger landscape of the Court’s retrenchment from anti-subordination principles and growing solicitude toward states’ rights. Moving forward, preemption claims may be less effective for the immigrants or Native Nations that assert those claims against states. Moreover, preemption arguments reify the experiences of noncitizens and Native Nations by translating them into arguments about federal power. In contrast, rights claims—even when they do not prevail—can mobilize and ground a political strategy for subordinated groups. In this shifting doctrinal landscape, treaty rights claims may be the supremacy arguments most likely to support a multifaceted movement to empower some historically disempowered groups.
Adam Crepelle on the Indian Commerce Clause
Adam Crepelle has published “Applying the Indian Commerce Clause to Indian Commerce” in the Northwestern University Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
Indian country commerce generates tens of billions of dollars annually and is a constant source of litigation. These disputes typically revolve around jurisdictional conflicts: whether states, tribes, or both possess regulatory authority over the business operating in Indian country, particularly those involving non-Indians. Despite numerous court cases, no clear legal framework has emerged, creating pervasive uncertainty regarding fundamental issues, such as state taxation of tribal transactions and the proper forum for resolving Indian country contract disputes. Interestingly, these commercial cases overlook the Indian Commerce Clause—the constitutional provision designed to address such matters.
This Article argues the Indian Commerce Clause prohibits state regulation of Indian country commerce. The clause’s plain text and original understanding support this interpretation. While the Supreme Court departed from this understanding in the late 19th century, it has never adequately justified this shift. During the 1980s, the United States argued the Indian Commerce Clause bars state taxation of tribal commerce, and the Supreme Court rejected this argument with scant judicial reasoning. Consequently, courts continue to rely on ambiguous, fact-specific tests that undermine tribal sovereignty and economic development.
This Article proposes a revitalized application of the Indian Commerce Clause, advocating for a clear, constitutionally grounded framework. By categorically preempting state intrusion into Indian country commerce, this approach would provide the certainty necessary for tribal economic self-determination to flourish. This Article demonstrates how such a framework would resolve the current jurisdictional chaos, offering specific guidance for its implementation and ultimately promoting a more just and equitable relationship between tribes and states.
N.Y. Federal Court Issues Stay of Discovery Pending Motion to Dismiss in Highway Signs Case
Here are the new materials in Shinnecock Indian Tribe v. Hochul (E.D. N.Y.):
Pathway to Law for Tribal Citizens Workshop, June 3-6, 2026
This year’s Pathway to Law for Tribal Citizens Workshop will be held at the ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law on June 3–6, 2026.
We encourage aspiring law students to apply. As a participant of the Pathway to Law Workshop, you’ll learn about admissions criteria, receive hands-on feedback, financing options, LSAT prep, and more — all in a non-recruitment environment.
Sponsored by: J.D. Admissions Office, UC Berkeley School of Law | Turtle Talk: Official Blog of the IL&PC | American Indian Law Center, Inc. | University of New Mexico School of Law | Indian Legal Program at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at ASU
Apply for this FREE 4-day workshop: law.asu.edu/pathwaytolaw
New York Family Court Grants Full Faith and Credit to Navajo Nation Court Order in UCCJEA/ICWA Matter
Here is the order in K.J. v. S.A. (N.Y. Fam. Ct.).
Federal FTCA Suit Filed over BIA Cop Killing of Turtle Mountain Chippewa Citizen
Minnesota COA Vacates Cannabis Conviction under PL280, Concurrence Criticizes Minn. SCT Precedents on PL280
Here are the materials in State of Minnesota v. Thompson (Minn. Ct. App.):
UCLA Indigenous Peoples’ Journal of Law, Culture & Resistance Call for Submissions
The Indigenous Peoples’ Journal of Law, Culture & Resistance (IPJLCR) is currently accepting submissions for Volume 12, which has a target publication date of Spring 2027. Submissions are being accepted until Sun., March 15, 2026. Email submissions and any questions to: ipjlcr@lawnet.ucla.edu.
IPJLCR is an interdisciplinary law journal housed at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law that focuses on Indigenous legal issues and publishes scholarly articles, legal commentary, poetry, songs, stories, artwork, and other media. We are soliciting scholarly articles, student comments, and art that centers on or relates to legal issues important to Indigenous communities in the United States and throughout the world. We also seek works on issues or aspects of life in Native communities that are impacted by law, whether tribal law or the laws of nation-states. To access past issues, please visit https://escholarship.org/uc/uclalaw_ipjlcr.
Requirements:
- Each submission should be sent as one Microsoft Word file with Bluebook formatted citations (22nd ed. 2025) in footnotes;
- Articles should be less than or equal to 50 pages and include 12 pt Times New Roman font for the body of the manuscript, 10 pt Times New Roman font for footnotes, 1-inch margins, and the author’s name, address, phone number, and email address in the header of the first page;
- A brief biography.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.