Turtle Talk

Evan D. Burnick has published “Canon Against Conquest” in the University of Illinois Law Review.

The abstract:

The interpretive rules that require judges to read treaties, statutes, and other legal texts in favor of Native nations and people have always been contested. But seldom has the future of the “Indian canon” seemed so uncertain. Several sitting Supreme Court Justices have questioned the legitimacy of the Indian canon, expressing skepticism about the roots of the specific rules that constitute it and raising doubts about whether “Congress has always framed statutes in a way that are favorable to Indian tribes.” Other Justices have written or joined opinions that have narrowed and diluted the Indian canon.

This Article maps the origins and development of the Indian canon and defends it on originalist and textualist grounds. It then contends that the canon should be codified to ensure its survival. This codification should be expressly grounded in a constitutional commitment to tribal sovereignty. Tribal sovereignty was part of the law of nations at the Founding; it was built into the original meaning and structure of the Constitution; and it persists today, in spite of state and federal efforts to extinguish it.

Codification is necessary because it is not enough to answer criticisms of the Indian canon from the standpoint of originalism, textualism, or any other methodology that holds sway on the Supreme Court. The canon has been diminished, disparaged, and nearly discarded by judges of a variety of methodological persuasions. Codification will increase the likelihood that the canon will be deployed to protect Native lands, governance, and culture. As an act of legislative constitutionalism, it will be at once entitled to respect and tailored to receive it.