Here are the materials in Tohono O’Odham Nation v. Department of the Interior (D. Ariz.):
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in Tohono O’Odham Nation v. Department of the Interior (D. Ariz.):
Prior post here.
Here are the materials so far in Mashkikii Boodawaaning (Medicine Fireplace) Inc. v. Chippewa Valley Agency Ltd. (W.D. Wis.):
Here is the brief in Held v. State of Montana:
Anthony Hernandez has published “Tribal Trademark Law” in the Stanford Law Review. Here is the abstract:
Native American tribes are increasingly creating their own intellectual and cultural property statutes. Of all the new legislation, tribal trademark law in particular is an engaging yet understudied area. By studying tribal trademark law, it becomes possible to evaluate the nature and scope of tribal sovereignty. And studying tribal trademark law provides an opportunity to consider how federal trademark law might incorporate tribal innovations. Situated at the intersection of tribal law, intellectual property, and tribal sovereignty, this Note asks whether the federal government is prepared to incorporate and recognize tribal trademark law in the same way that it has done for states’ laws.
Here is the complaint in Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. Stack’s-Bowers Numismatics (Cal. Super.):
From the NAES newsletter, “NAES Rule,” Nov. 1986:
Arthur Lazarus, the general counsel of the Association on American Indian Affairs (and the drafter of the original bill that became the Indian Child Welfare Act), filed amicus briefs in a suit by a Navajo tribal citizen challenging the power of the Secretary of the Interior to approve the Navajo Tribal Council’s ban on peyote use by the Native America Church. The case was filed as Oliver v. Seaton (D.D.C.):
The challenge really was against the Navajo ban, but Mr. Oliver challenged the Secretary’s approval of the ban, alleging that the approval violated the Exercise Clause. An important aspect of the AAIA’s amicus brief was that Talton v. Mayes, which seemingly held the federal Constitution did not regulate tribal power, did not govern the violation of “fundamental rights.”
There’s an interesting effort to compare tribal nations to the American territories here. We know from cases as recent as Puerto Rico v. Sanchez-Valle regarding Puerto Rico’s sovereignty that tribal sovereignty is more robust that Lazarus credits here. Note the conclusion, invoking the axiom that the “Constitution . . . follows the flag,” usually invoked in war crimes commission law like in the Guantanamo Bay cases.
Needless to say, the Navajo Nation was upset that the AAIA threw its support behind the Native American Church and not the tribe.
Mr. Oliver ultimately did not prevail. See Oliver v. Udall, 306 F.2d 819 (D.C. Cir. 1962).
Here is the opinion in Apache Stronghold v. United States.
Links to briefs and other materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.