New Student Scholarship Arguing that Elk v. Wilkins Was Wrongly Decided

Shunhe Wang has published “Oh Deer: The Elk Court’s Misunderstanding of the Citizenship Clause” in the University of Richmond Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

This Article examines the enduring legacy of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), a Supreme Court decision that interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause to exclude Native Americans from birthright citizenship. By relegating Native citizenship status to a statutory privilege rather than a constitutional right, Elk created a framework that has since been weaponized to challenge birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. This Article demonstrates how Elk’s flawed reasoning—particularly its narrow reading of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—continues to shape legal and political efforts to erode the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees.

Drawing on Justice Harlan’s dissent in Elk, the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the text of the Citizenship Clause, this Article argues that Elk was wrongly decided and that the jurisdictional requirement was never intended as a tool for exclusion. The Reconstruction Framers designed the Citizenship Clause to ensure equal citizenship for all persons born on U.S. soil, regardless of ancestry or parental status. Justice Harlan’s dissent provides a blueprint for this inclusive reading, rejecting the notion that allegiance at birth determines jurisdiction.

This Article calls for the explicit repudiation of Elk and its continued misuse in modern birthright citizenship debates. The Fourteenth Amendment’s promise is clear: for anyone born in the United States who subjects themselves to its jurisdiction, birthright citizenship is a constitutional right, not a congressional privilege.

Tana Fitzpatrick on the History of Tribal Access to Legal Representation

Tana Fitpatrick published “Federal Gatekeeping and Hollow Sovereignty: A Historical
Statutory Analysis of Tribal Access to Legal Representation
” in the Sovereignty Symposium XXXVII (2025). It seems like a really good paper. Wish I knew about it earlier.

Indian Law Scholars Amicus Brief in Birthright Citizenship Case

Here is the brief in Trump v. Barbara:

Blast from the Past: Remembering Jesse Jackson’s Presidential Campaign Stops in Arizona Indian Country

Indian Truth, June 1984, p. 9

The Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation settle redistricting lawsuit

On December 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana approved a settlement reached in Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation v. Chouteau County, Montana that will provide Tribal citizens the opportunity to elect a representative of their choice to the Chouteau County Board of County Commissioners.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Tribal Nation’s reservation will be part of Chouteau County’s District 1, which will elect a representative to the Board of County Commissioner through a single-member district election.

“We’re pleased that the county did the right thing in giving the Chippewa Cree Tribe a chance to elect a representative to the Board of Commissioners,” said Chippewa Cree Tribe Chairman Harlan Gopher Baker. “It has been more than a decade since we have had a Native voice in county politics. We look forward to being a part of this conversation.”

“This case was about our community finally having a representative and a voice like other voters in the county,” said plaintiff and voter Tanya Schmockel, a citizen of the Chippewa Cree Tribe. “I am excited about finally having the chance to have our voices heard and our concerns addressed.”

Most of Chouteau County’s Native population lives on or near the Rocky Boy’s Reservation, and many critical local issues — such as infrastructure, road maintenance, and emergency services — require coordination between the county and Tribal governments.

“In order for our county to include all of us, we needed a fair election system. With the new district, we have a chance for our voters to elect a commissioner who understands Native issues,” said plaintiff and voter Ken Morsette, a citizen of the Chippewa Cree Tribe. “This is a huge step forward for our Tribe.”

Native American Rights Fund (NARF), American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Voting Rights Project (ACLU), and ACLU of Montana (ACLU-MT), represent the plaintiffs in this case.

Read more about the Tribe’s successful fight for fair voting in Chouteau County.

Blast from the Past: Hank Adams’ Polemic, “The Lonely Crowd and the Organization IRA Man Revisited”

New Scholarship on the Morrill Act and Native Lands Dispossession

Teresa M. Miguel-Stearns, Samantha Ginsberg, and Kristen Cook have posted “More Than Morrill: The Intertwined History of Indian Land Dispossession, Arizona Statehood, and University Enrichment,” published by the Arizona Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Through the federal government’s university land-grant programs, which began with the Morrill Act in 1862 and continue today, Congress has systematically allocated millions of acres of land in the western United States to states to create endowments to support the public higher education of its citizens. In Arizona, land was taken from Indigenous peoples, communities, tribes, and nations by treaty, act of congress, executive order, and force to accomplish this. As a result, by the time of statehood in 1912, the state of Arizona had accumulated approximately 850,000 acres of land around the state on behalf of higher education, including the University of Arizona, then the state’s only university and its designated land-grant institution. Today, the Arizona State Land Department still holds and manages 688,706 acres of land in trust for the benefit of public higher education. All three of Arizona’s public universities receive distributions from the revenue generated by these trust lands. The goal of this paper is to explore and analyze the University of Arizona’s historical and ongoing enrichment from land taken from Indigenous peoples by the federal government and transferred to the territory and, later, the state of Arizona in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for the benefit of institutions of higher education. A comprehensive understanding of Arizona’s history and the state’s current holdings and financial benefits is required to examine the policy implications and moral and legal obligations that Arizona and its universities have to Indigenous peoples in Arizona. 

Christian McMillen on Forced Fee Patents

Christian McMillen has published “I Didn’t Know That a Patent Was a Dangerous Thing”: Forced Fee Patents, Native Resistance, and Consent” in the Western Historical Quarterly.

Here is the abstract:

Between 1906 and 1920 the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) issued more than 32,000 fee patents, covering 4.2 million acres of land. More than half of the patents were issued between 1917 and 1920. The BIA forced many of these patents upon Native people without their consent. When individually allotted land went from trust to fee, the land was taxed and could be sold. The consequences were devastating. Was this legal? Many Native people protested their fee patents, but others did not. Indeed, protesting dispossession was an act of courage and defiance. Native protest led to a legal precedent that had an impact across Indian country: consent was required. But was compliance synonymous with consent? Must one resist a policy found to be illegal in order for it not to apply? For a time, the answer was yes. Ideas about consent began to change leading to another series of legal challenges to the Bureau’s forced fee patent policy.

Blast from the Past: Brochure Advocating for Equal Rights Amendment to be Adopted by Tribal Nations [Victoria Santana]

Excerpts: