Upcoming USDA Consultation —Treaty Database and Self Determination

From the USDA Office of Tribal Relations:


Tribal Consultation: Expanding Tribal Self Determination Policies at USDA

Where: National Congress of American Indians Mid-Year
(Cherokee, N.C.) (Hybrid: In-person and virtual)

Caucus: May 23rd: 2:00 pm – 5:00 pm (ET)

The Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative will facilitate a Tribal Caucus on May 23 from 1-4 p.m. CST ahead of the USDA Consultations on Expanding Tribal Self Determination Policies during NCAI Mid Year, the week of June 3 at the Eastern Band Cherokee Indians. This caucus will be closed to federal staff, and registrants will have access to a briefing note that will cover the three topics.

Dates: Monday, June 3:
Forestry (1-4 p.m. EDT)
Register Here for Forestry Consultation

Monday, June 3:
Meat Inspections (4:30-7:30 p.m. EDT)
Register Here for Meat Inspections Consultation

Wednesday, June 5:
Food Sovereignty and Nutrition Programs (1-4 p.m. EDT)
Register Here for Food Sovereignty and Nutrition Consultation

RSVP: All attendees, including those attending in-person, must register/RSVP above. The Zoom link will allow you to choose “Virtual” or “In-Person.


Tribal Treaty Database Consultation and Listening Session
What: Tribal Treaty Database Consultation and Listening Session
Where: NCAI Midyear Convention, Cherokee, North Carolina
Room: 108
When: Wednesday, June 5, 2024
1:00 – 3:00PM ET
RSVP: Whether attending in person or remote please register at the following link: Tribal Consultation and Listening Session on USDA-DOI Treaty Database ZoomGov registration

 

Updated information here, Tribal Consultations | USDA

Student Note on Hawai’ian Water Law after the Wildfires

The Harvard Law Review has published “Kānāwai From Ahi: Revitalizing The Hawai‘i Water Code in the Wake of the Maui Wildfires.” PDF

An excerpt:

Native Hawaiians have been skeptical of corporate landowners’ alleged concerns over disaster preparedness and characterization of traditional water rights. They blame the prioritization of corporate water interests, the privatization of water, and the harms of colonialism for the severity of the fires. And they worry that Lahaina’s destruction could be used to furtively pass “unpopular laws and policies” that prioritize commercial uses and exacerbate political inequality.
As Chandler-‘Īao’s box of water-permit applications illustrates, the Maui fires represent an inflection point for Hawaiian water law. But we did not arrive at this point overnight. Rather, the fires were the byproduct of a century of colonialism that imposed a resource-management regime that razed the environment and externalized its harms on kānaka maoli. Because of this legacy, Maui was “a ticking time bomb” for wildfires. When it is remembered that the ancient Hawaiian system of watershed management was sustainable before it was ravaged by colonialism, Maui’s current state is even more heart wrenching.

Federal Brief in Opposition to Cert in West Flagler v. Haaland

Here:

The petition is here.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Full En Banc Petition in Oak Flat Case

Here is the amended opinion and the order denying en banc review before the full court.

Panel decision and briefs here.

Ka’ila Ferrell Smith

CFC Allows Some Navajo Claims to Proceed in Trust Breach Suit

Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

Complaint here.

Elena Baylis on NAGPRA and Looted Cultural Objects

Elena A. Baylis has posted “Looted Cultural Objects,” forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review Forum, on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In the United States, Europe, and elsewhere, museums are in possession of cultural objects that were unethically taken from their countries and communities of origin under the auspices of colonialism. For many years, the art world considered such holdings unexceptional. Now, a longstanding movement to decolonize museums is gaining momentum, and some museums are reconsidering their collections. Presently, whether to return such looted foreign cultural objects is typically a voluntary choice for individual museums to make, not a legal obligation. Modern treaties and statutes protecting cultural property apply only prospectively, to items stolen or illegally exported after their effective dates. But while the United States does not have a law concerning looted foreign cultural objects, it does have a statute governing the repatriation of Native American cultural items and human remains. The Native American Graves Protection and Restoration Act requires museums to return designated Native American cultural objects to their communities – even if they were obtained before the law went into effect. This statute offers a valuable model for repatriating foreign cultural objects that were taken from formerly colonized peoples.

Arizona Federal Court Holds Harrah’s is Not an Arm of the Tribe, Allows Race Discrimination Suit to Proceed

Here are the materials in Xia v. Harrah’s Arizona Corporation (D. Ariz.):

Bobby Wilson

Ann Tweedy on Anticommandeering and Indian Affairs Legislation

Ann E. Tweedy has posted “Anticommandeering and Indian Affairs Legislation,” forthcoming in the Harvard Journal on Legislation, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

The Supreme Court recently applied the narrow and relatively new anticommandeering doctrine for the first time to federal Indian Affairs legislation in Halaand v. Brackeen without explaining why the doctrine should be extended from the Interstate Commerce Clause context to that of the Indian Commerce Clause, as well as to the other congressional powers that form the basis of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). In subsequent cases relating to Indian Affairs legislation, the Court should clarify that only a very narrow version of the anticommandeering doctrine applies in this context because of the virtual absence of state authority in the area and the history of acceptance of federal activities that can be described as commandeering state enforcement activities. Existing literature in this area is limited, with Matthew Fletcher and Randall Khalil having argued, before Brackeen was issued, that ICWA should be interpreted as having been enacted under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, an invitation that the Court ultimately did not take up. This Essay, The Diminished Significance of the Anticommandeering Doctrine in the Context of Indian Affairs Legislation, is important because it explains holes in the Court’s reasoning in Brackeen and because it safeguards Congress’s ability to protect Native Americans and Tribes from longstanding abusive state practices such as the unwarranted removal of Indian children from their homes.

Andrea Carlson

Elizabeth Reese on the Lack of Tribal Representation in the Federal Government

Elizabeth Reese has published “Tribal Representation and Assimilative Colonialism” in the Stanford Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

There are 574 federally recognized domestic dependent tribal nations in the United States. Each tribe is separate from its respective surrounding state(s) and governs itself. And yet, none of them have the power to send representatives to Congress. Our democratic representative structures function as if tribal governments and the reservations they govern do not exist. But tribal citizens do not simply live within a state and are not simply governed by that state like any other state citizen. Rather, it is tribal law and tribal governments—not state law or state governments—that primarily govern and shape the lives of tribal citizens living on reservations. Tribal governments are not complementary or subsidiary to state governments—they are frequent rivals for power and resources. This system, simply put, doesn’t make sense. Tribes should have their own representation in the federal government. This Article makes the case for why and examines how this seemingly obvious omission in our democratic structuring came to pass.

This Article examines the democratic mismatch between existing governments—which include not only 50 states, but also 574 federally recognized tribes—and the representative democratic structure that is built into the Constitution around the institution of the state. It details the failed attempts of tribal governments to obtain representation, either as states or outside of statehood. This history reveals a story about race, power, colonialism, and institutions. Attempts by white majorities to hold onto political power within states included denying Native peoples’ individual rights and denying statehood to largely Native areas until Native people assimilated or white citizens outnumbered them.

These dynamics, which this Article dubs “assimilative colonialism,” have not only shaped our existing democratic structures but have also had a lasting effect on Native relationships with political power. The nefarious brilliance of assimilative colonialism was to offer American political power to Native peoples—whether citizenship, statehood, or delegates—only and always at the cost of what made them Native. As a result, many Native people justifiably view American political power not as empowering but as dangerous. Assimilative colonialism has thus held back the emergence of Native movements for political reform by making it impossible to even imagine tribal representation in a real sense since it seemed only possible through assimilation.

It is long overdue that we step back and examine the legacy of assimilative colonialism in American representative democracy. We ought to think about structural reform and what representative structures could—and maybe should—have been on the table for tribal governments and their citizens since the beginning. We ought to be asking: What would American democratic structures look like if we truly incorporated tribal governments as equal sovereigns within the United States?

Tribal Amicus Brief in Opposition to Montana TikTok Ban

Here is the brief in Alario v. Knudsen (CA9):