Lillian Aponte Miranda’s article “Indigenous Peoples as International Lawmakers” has been published

She previously presented the article at MSU and several other places. The cite is 32 U. Penn. J. Int’l L. 203 (2010). Here’s the abstract:

“Through a transnational social movement that has capitalized upon the politics of difference, local communities of indigenous peoples have significantly participated in the construction of a distinctive international legal identity and derivative framework of human rights. The ability of a traditionally marginalized community to succeed in strategically facilitating the recognition of an international legal identity and substantive reconstitution of human rights precepts is a unique phenomenon that merits attention. To that end, this Article addresses the role of indigenous peoples in international human rights lawmaking. It argues that indigenous peoples have played a significant role in changing the legal landscape of human rights in ways that are not necessarily captured by mainstream accounts of non-state actor participation *204 in international norm-building and decision-making. It further proposes, however, that the participation of indigenous peoples in international human rights lawmaking continues to operate within certain discursive and structural limitations. While indigenous peoples’ participation may serve to lend greater legitimacy to international human rights law and lawmaking processes, such participation may not effectively deliver material gains. As a result, continued advocacy on behalf of indigenous peoples must acknowledge and respond to these challenges.”

Brian Lewis’ article on DOI regulations under IGRA published in Thomas M. Cooley Journal of Practical and Clinical Law

The article is called “A Day Late and a Dollar Short: Section 2719 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the Interpretation of its Exceptions and the Part 292 Regulations,” 12 T.M. Cooley J. Prac. & Clinical L. 147 (2010), and concerns regulations about which lands tribes may operate casinos on. Here’s a one paragraph excerpt from the Introduction:

“The DOI’s Regulations, which impose added burdens on tribes and narrow the exceptions, impair the settled expectations of tribes and businesses. Moreover, this impairment may persist because the Supreme Court’s holding in Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., requires courts to defer to agencies, despite having been the first to interpret and define statutes. However, because of the difference of circumstances, unlike in Brand X, the DOI’s interpretations should not be deferred to. Chevron deference, as applied in Brand X, may unconstitutionally reallocate authority from Article III to Article II. Lastly, the discipline of law and economics tells us that the Regulations’ changes and the majority’s opinion in Brand X promulgates an inefficient legal rule that may be-and should be-changed.”

Umatilla & other tribes support Oregon’s proposed adoption of stricter water quality standards

Here’s the news article.

Also, the comment period has been extended to March 21. More information is here.

Note on Inuits and Climate Change Published in Southeastern Environmental Law Journal

Katherine King’s Note examining differing Inuit perspectives on climate change and the regulatory implications of these differing perspectives has been published. The article is called “Climate change and the Inuit: a melting of actions into a cloudy mess” and can be found at 17 Southeastern Envtl. L.J. 481 (2009).

National Geographic publishes story and photos on isolated Amazon tribe in Brazil

The tribe is apparently in danger because its lands in Peru and Brazil are sought after by loggers and miners and others.
New Pictures Show “Uncontacted” Tribe “Well and Strong”.

Comment on Applicability of the Full Faith & Credit Act to Tribal Judgments Published in California Law Review

Craig Smith has published a comment arguing that tribal judgments should be afforded Full Faith and Credit. The cite is 98 Cal. L. Rev. 1393 (2010). A one paragraph summary from the article is below:
“In this Comment, I attempt to answer some of those lingering questions by revisiting the claim that tribes should be afforded full faith and credit under the Full Faith and Credit Act. By looking to the Indian Law canons, the unique precedent of Puerto Rico, and the present reality of federal-tribal relations, I conclude that the Act does mandate full faith and credit for tribes. Rather than looking to whether Congress intended to include tribes at the moment it amended the Full Faith and Credit Act to include territories and countries under the jurisdiction of the United States, I arrive at my conclusion by following the approach of the First Circuit in the context of Puerto Rico and asking: Would Congress have intended to include tribes in § 1738 if it were aware of the current status of federally recognized Indian tribes today?”

Obama appoints Goldberg, Pouley, and Quasula to Indian Law & Order Commission

Carole Goldberg, Theresa Pouley, and Ted Quasula have been appointed to the Indian Law & Order Commission. Congratulations to all of them!

New video emerges in inquest of police officer for shooting death of First Nations wood carver

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013896219_inquest11m.html

Article on native entitlements and formal equality published in Law & Society Review

Courtenay W. Daum and Eric Ishiwata have published “From the Myth of Formal Equality to the Politics of Social Justice: Race and the Legal Attack on Native Entitlements” in Law & Society Review, 44 L. & Soc’y Rev. 843 (2010). Here’s the abstract:

“This article examines how the conservative legal movement’s successful count-ermobilization of the politics of rights enables U.S. Supreme Court outcomes that exacerbate racial and ethnic inequities while solidifying the privileged position of others in the name of equality. A comparison of two pivotal Supreme Court cases involving native entitlements–Morton v. Mancari (1974) and Rice v. Cayetano (2000)–illustrates how appeals to formal, as opposed to substantive, equality work in effect to support existing hierarchies. At the same time, the conservative legal movement’s success provides progressive social actors with opportunities to reframe the discourse. We suggest that a critical questioning of strategies predicated on appeals for equal rights may be necessary to advance the interests of native populations in the current environment, and we identify an alternative way of working for native interests, one that escapes the constraints of equality doctrine by appealing to broader claims of social justice.”