
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Squaxin Island Tribal Court Holds Disenrollment Action Was Arbitrary and Capricious
Here is the opinion in In re the Disenrollment Appeal of Selvidge-Brownfield:
Native American Rights Fund: Resources for Individuals and Non-Profits Approached by ICE
Tribal Amicus Brief in Watson v. Republican National Committee
Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw Also Sue Oklahoma over Hunting and Fishing Rights
Fletcher TICA-Arizona State Bar CLE (1/14/26): Congressional Powers Post-Brackeen
Tenth Circuit Reverses Conviction Because Government Did Not Sufficiently Prove Defendant Was Non-Indian
SCOTUS Denies Cert in Michigan Treaty Rights and Alaska Subsistence Rights Challenges
Here is the order list.
Case tag for Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Michigan is here.
Case tag for Alaska v. United States is here.

Monte Mills on Indian Treaties and the Washington Supreme Court
Monte Mills has published “From Winans to Wallahee: Treaties, the Washington State Supreme Court, and the Pursuit of a More Just Rule of Law” in the Washington Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
The relationship between the United States federal government, the states, and Native Nations has long been at the core of federal Indian law. From the earliest decades of its jurisprudence, for example, the United States Supreme Court struggled in its efforts to analyze and define the rights, authorities, and interactions of Native Nations within and in relation to the evolving structure of constitutional federalism. Treaties between the United States and Native Nations were central to those decisions and provided a necessary, constitutional check against state interests intent on eliminating sovereign Native Nations. Those constitutional and structural implications thus go well beyond federal Indian law and provide important—but often overlooked—insight into the health and stability of fundamental aspects of our legal system as a whole and, therefore, the rule of law itself. Here in Washington, the Washington State Supreme Court developed its own approach to analyzing and interpreting treaty rights, which, for much of the first half of the twentieth century, largely ignored or dismissed treaties and rights reserved thereunder in favor of state interests. More recently, however, the state’s highest court has embarked on an effort to reassess and reckon with its role in perpetrating and perpetuating historical injustices. That effort has resulted in a series of decisions reconsidering the Court’s own treaty-related jurisprudence and, therefore, offers a timely and critically important opportunity to consider the potential and promise of this work. In the spirit of the 125th anniversary of the founding of the University of Washington School of Law and the centennial volume of Washington Law Review, this Article considers the fundamental issues posed by treaty-related questions and aims to draw lessons from the Washington State Supreme Court’s recent efforts to address historical injustices that might inform other, similar efforts across the country. Situating that assessment within the context of treaty rights and the sovereignty of Native Nations illustrates the power of this work to catalyze a deeper and broader reckoning with crucial questions of justice and the rule of law.
Highly recommended.













You must be logged in to post a comment.