Here is Jennifer L. Robinson and Stephen L. Nelson, The Small but Powerful Voice in American Elections: A Discussion of Voting Rights Litigation on Behalf of American Indians , 70 Baylor L. Rev. 91.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Texas Appellate Court Holds Choctaw Nation Liable for Bus Crash
Here is the opinion in Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma v. Sewell (Tex. Ct. App.):
American Indian Law Bibliography (2018 ed.)
By Patrick O’Donnell, here.
National Indian Law Library Bulletin (5/29/18)
Here:
The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 5/29/18.
U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2017-2018update.html
A decision was published in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren (Tribal Sovereign Immunity) on 5/21/18.
Petition for certiorari was granted in Royal v. Murphy (Reservation Boundaries) on 5/21/18.
Petition for certiorari was filed in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe, et al. (Treaty Fishing Rights) on 5/21/18.
Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2018.html
• Establishing the denominator: The challenges of measuring multiracial, Hispanic, and Native American populations.
• Counting America’s first peoples.
• Accountability or merely “good words”? An analysis of tribal consultation under The National Environmental Policy Act and The National Historic Preservation Act.
• Consenting to dispossession: The problematic heritage and complex future of consultation and consent of Indigenous peoples.
• Cultural heritage protection and sacred spaces: Considering alternative approaches from within the human rights framework.
• Federal Indian Reserved Water Rights and the No Harm Rule.
• The puzzle of traditional knowledge.
• Protecting cultural rights in the South Pacific Islands: Using UNESCO and marine protected areas to plan for climate change.
• “Indian” as a political classification: Reading the tribe back into the Indian Child Welfare Act.
• Policy considerations and implications in United States v. Bryant.
• Presidential authority and the Antiquities Act.
• The controversy over permit-exempt wells in Washington.
• “With the Indian tribes”: Race, citizenship, and original constitutional meanings.
• Presidential authority and the Antiquities Act.
• Standing together: How the Federal government can protect the tribal cultural resources of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
Federal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2018.html
Mono County v. Walker River Irrigation District (Tribal Water Rights)
United States v. Walker River Irrigation District (Tribal Water Rights)
Fawn Cain, Tanya Archer and Sandi Ovitt v. Salish Kootenai College, Inc. (Tribal Colleges; Tribal Sovereign Immunity)
FSS Development CO., LLC v. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma (Indian Gaming; Diversity Jurisdiction)
State Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2018.html
In re Williams (Michigan Indian Family Protection Act)
People In Interest of I.B.-R. (Indian Child Welfare Act – Notice)
News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Health & Welfare section, we feature an article about a U.S. Congressional bill to combat Native American veteran homelessness.
U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/115_uslegislation.html
The following bills were added:
• S.Res.529: A resolution promoting minority health awareness and supporting the goals and ideals of National Minority Health Month in April 2018, which include bringing attention to the health disparities faced by minority populations of the United States such as American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Asian Americans, African Americans, Hispanics and Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders.
• S.2943: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt Indian tribal governments and other tribal entities from the employer health coverage mandate during the time the employer health coverage mandate exists.
• H.R.5847: To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to improve recruitment and retention of employees in Indian Health Service, restore accountability in the Indian Health Service, improve health services, and for other purposes.
• S.2907: A bill to provide for the withdrawal and protection of certain Federal lands in the State of New Mexico.
• H.R.5911: To amend Public Law 115-97 (commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) to repeal the Arctic National Wildlife oil and gas program, and for other purposes.
EcoRobeson Joins Enviro Groups in Challenging Pipeline Decision
Here:
Chris Chaney on Data Sovereignty and TOOA
Christopher B. Chaney has published “Data Sovereignty and the Tribal Law and Order Act” in the Federal Lawyer.
North Dakota State Court Declines Jurisdiction over Bank’s Foreclosure of Trust Land at Turtle Mountain
Here is the opinion in Turtle Mountain State Bank v. Delorme:
Carl Bogus: “Was Slavery a Factor in the Second Amendment?”
Yes. That and killing Indians. Here, from the New York Times.
Greg Ablavsky Commentary on Upper Skagit Decision
Gregory Ablavsky has posted “Upper Skagit v. Lundgren: Deceptively Straightforward Case Raises Fundamental Questions about Native Nations, History, and Sovereignty” on Stanford Law School’s blog.
Here are excerpts:
This decision provoked the ire of Justice Thomas, who, in a lengthy dissent, insisted that the immovable property exception did apply to tribes. Thomas’s rationale involved a deep dive into the history of international law, citing the principle’s enunciation not just in such well-known staples as Vattel’s 1758 Law of Nations but also in deep cuts like the works of Cornelius van Bynkershoek and Bartolus of Sassaferatto. (Sadly for connoisseurs of elaborately named international-law treatise writers, Samuel von Pufendorf failed to make the cut). Columbia’s Ronald Mann, writing in ScotusBlog, called this dissent a “tour de force of historical arguments.”
I’m not so convinced. Although I’m on record sharply questioning Justice Thomas’s constitutional history in Indian law more generally, I agree with Thomas that the immovable property exception has deep roots in international law. But I question his blithe assumption that the same principle did, or should, apply to tribes.
***
One consequence of Marshall’s ruling that tribes were “domestic dependent nations” was that Native nations were deprived the benefits of international law—including the immovable property exception. The history of U.S. westward expansion is largely the history of one sovereign—the United States—purchasing land within the territory of other sovereigns—Native nations. Yet, notwithstanding Thomas’s “six centuries of consensus” on the issue, the United States did not believe these purchases subjected these lands to tribal courts and law; it assumed that it now had jurisdiction as well as ownership over the land. And this was an assumption: unlike the transfers from France in the Louisiana Purchase or Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, for instance, which explicitly stated that they conveyed sovereignty as well as title, most Indian treaties spoke only of the boundaries of the land sold. There is, then, a bitter irony in Thomas’s invocation of Bushrod Washington’s 1824 statement that “the title to, and the disposition of real property, must be exclusively subject to the laws of the country where it is situated”—an irony only heightened when we recall that Marshall had decided Johnson v. M’Intosh, which unambiguously rejected that principle with respect to Native peoples, a year before.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.