Jessica Shoemaker has posted “No Sticks in My Bundle: Rethinking the Indian Land Tenure Problem,” forthcoming in the Kansas Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
This article analyzes the modern rule that individual Indian co-owners of allotted land retain no direct rights to use and possess their own property without a lease or other prior permission from their co-owners. This special Indian no-use and no-possession rule is of a relatively recent vintage, and it is contrary to the rights of co-owners in nearly every non-Indian jurisdiction. This rule is also ahistorical and contrary to current federal policy to promote Indian use of Indian land. While other scholarship on Indian land tenure has focused on the practical challenges of coordinating among so many co-owners in Indian lands’ fractionated state and on the limits imposed by the federal trust status’s alienation restraints on these lands, this article argues that the lack of legal possession and use rights for Indian co-owners is a third and previously overlooked factor in the problem of Indian self-determination. This article ultimately concludes that the federal co-ownership rules for individual Indian lands are poorly designed and are exacerbating other land tenure and social and economic problems in Indian Country. This article ultimately proposes tribally driven solutions to create a more rational and culturally congruent property system for indigenous people.
Turtle Talk 
How are 25 CFR 162.104 and 25 CFR 162.005 anything other than a taking? Trust land status may leave the fee in the federal government (it holds the title), and the government may have a trust responsibility (which amounts to something very different from trust law outside of the Indian law context), but I’m not aware of any federal court decision that says Indian trust land status also gives the federal government use and possessory rights in Indian trust lands such that they have the legal power to prevent a beneficial owner from using or possessing their own land… Am I missing something?
This article certainly sets up that argument, and I note it as a subject I plan to work on further. I suspect Interior will likely respond with something about regulating leasing and ensuring FMV rent income for all owners…. But I completely hear you.