Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (subproceeding 11-02):
Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes Brief
Oral argument video here.
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (subproceeding 11-02):
Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes Brief
Oral argument video here.
Bruce Johnsen has posted “The Potlatch as Fractional Reserve Banking” on SSRN, forthcoming in Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations, edited by Terry L. Anderson. Here is the quick description:
This chapter focuses on the Northwest Coast Tribes’ early capital markets and specifically on how their potlatch system served as a system of fractional reserve banking to expand their money supply and finance wealth enhancing investments.
Gavin Clarkson, Kate Spilde, and Carma Claw Nez have posted “Online Sovereignty: The Law and Economics of Tribal Electronic Commerce” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
In 1886, the US Supreme Court wrote that, for Indian tribes, “the people of the states where they are found are often their deadliest enemies.” Recently, state agencies and regulators have continued that tradition of hostility by improperly attempting to regulate electronic commerce businesses operated by tribal governments that are more properly subject to regulations established by tribal law and subject to federal oversight. Despite the fact that these online businesses operate exclusively under tribal law and make their tribal affiliation clear to customers, certain state regulators have demanded absolute compliance with state law, even when such laws are from states thousands of miles away. Not only does this overreaching by uninformed state regulators limit the products available to consumers but it also severely undercuts on-reservation economic development, imperils tribal electronic commerce, and challenges basic notions of tribal sovereignty.
Businesses and consumers entering into commercial contracts rely heavily on consistency and predictability in contracting, including when the parties mutually agree to apply tribal law or utilize tribal courts to resolve disputes. Uniform interpretation and enforcement of such agreements are critical to ensuring continued investment in tribal businesses. With over one quarter of American Indians living in poverty, nearly twice the national average, it has never been more important to promote confidence in the Indian economy. When courts do not give full force and effect to contracting parties’ desire to resolve their private disputes using tribal courts and tribal law, this confidence is threatened. While it is unclear how this controversy will ultimately play out, one thing is certain: states are not only undermining tribal innovation and harming tribal economies but also attacking tribal sovereignty itself.
Perhaps lost in the legal rancor, however, are the very real human and economic consequences of the loss of tribal revenues from e-commerce business, as well as the potential damage to tribal e-commerce as a whole. In this article, we present results of our empirical research into the economic impact of tribal online lending in Indian Country. We first frame the issue with a brief summary of the legal foundations for tribal e-commerce and tribal lending in particular. We then present several case studies of tribes that have engaged in online lending, focusing on the direct economic impact to those tribal communities. We conclude the article with policy arguments as to why state and federal regulators should support rather than suppress tribal e-commerce, including tribal small-dollar online lending.
Here:
Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission v. San Juan County (D. Utah):
Here is the opinion in Alaska Oil and Gas Assn. v. Jewell.
Here.
A message from NYU Law Review editor Raymond Fadel…
NYU Law Review is seeking submissions from Indian law scholars.
Our Online Department has voted to publish an online feature series spotlighting the Dollar General case, and its legal and policy implications. Amongst other things, we are currently looking for pieces that discuss the case itself, its legal background and importance, and its implications for Indian and non-Indian country alike—particularly Indigenous women’s issues and its insights into women’s issues in general.
To facilitate timely debate, we plan on publishing the spotlight series shortly after the Dollar General case is decided. We encourage you to submit your Essays and Comments within two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision, but of course, you are welcome to send your pieces for consideration as soon as you have them.
Online submissions have a maximum word limit of 10,000 words and may be submitted directly to our Senior Online Editor, Agne Jomantaite, at aj785@nyu.edu or via Scholastica. More information on our submission policy can be found on our website, www.nyulawreview.org.
As always, our Articles Department is seeking submissions covering diverse subject-matters, especially including general issues in Indian law that would be accessible to a generalist audience. Article submissions must have a minimum of 10,000 words and be submitted on Scholastica. In addition to submission on Scholastica, you may also forward any submission directly to our Senior Articles Editor, Tyler Domino, at tjd266@nyu.edu. The Department is accepting unsolicited articles through the end of March, 2016.
Here are the materials in Fredericks v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
You must be logged in to post a comment.