legal history – Turtle Talk

Indian Peaks Band Files to Protect Tribal Water Rights

April 20, 2026Matthew Campbell

On April 1, 2026, the Indian Peaks Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition for Stay with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s March 2, 2026, approval of the Pine Valley Water Supply Project.

The filing seeks review of BLM’s decision authorizing a large‑scale groundwater extraction and pipeline project in southern Utah and asks the IBLA to stay the project approvals while the appeal is pending. The Band argues that the decision violates federal law, including the National Environmental Policy Act, and unlawfully threatens the Band’s federally reserved water rights and culturally significant resources.

You can see more here.

Guest Post by Keith Richotte: Indian Law Supreme Court Database

April 13, 2026Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Hello fellow Turtle Talk Readers!

For those who I haven’t yet met, my name is Keith Richotte and I am the Director of the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program at the University of Arizona School of Law.

More importantly, I would like to introduce you to a new website that will hopefully be of interest to you and your network: The Supreme Court Indian Law Database. Recently launched, this resource offers a number of important features.

It identifies every Indian law case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court (680 and counting). Placed chronologically, the list has a search function to allow a researcher to find a particular cases or cases easily

It slots each case in one or more categories for identification and comparison. We have identified forty-three categories, including plenary power, criminal jurisdiction, treaties, and many others

It lists every justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and their participation in the cases on the list. It also identifies how the justice voted and if they wrote in a particular case.

The pages for each individual case identifies the other cases on the list that it cites and the cases where it has been cited. For example, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia cites three cases and has been cited forty-eight times

In the future, we intend on adding additional search functions to the list. Thus, hopefully before long a researcher will be able to easily identify cases decided between a certain date range, or cases that fall under the same four categories, or find out which three justices participated in the same cases or any combination of all three of these things and more.

In addition, there is room for debate for what counts as an Indian law case or for which category a particular case belongs. While acknowledging this certain subjectivity, quite a bit of thought and care went into curating the list. If you have questions about the list or would like to know how we came up with it I invite you to visit the methodology page.

Finally, while a lot of thought and care has been put into the list and the website, it is still very new and there is always room for improvement. To that end, if you have any constructive feedback you would like to share my email address is at the bottom of the main page.

I am so happy to be able to share this research with you. I, along with a small team (who you will eventually get to meet once we get our “contributor” page running), have been working diligently on this website for the past two years. It is free and available to the public and will be so as long as I have any say about it. My hope is that it will be a valuable resource for practitioners, scholars, students, tribal nations and peoples, and anyone else with an interest in Native America and a desire to see Indigenous peoples thrive. Thank you and happy searching on SCILDB.com!

Tanner Allread on Indigenous Constitutionalism

April 13, 2026April 13, 2026Matthew L.M. Fletcher

W. Tanner Allread has published “Indigenous Constitutionalism” in the Harvard Law Review.

Highly recommended. This is highly original and thoughtful scholarship on tribal law and the important role it plays in American legal theory.

Here is the abstract:

By standard accounts, there are fifty-four constitutions across the federal, state, and territorial governments of the United States. But in fact, there are 230 other governmental constitutions that currently govern peoples and territories within the United States. These constitutions not only flow from a sovereignty that existed prior to the United States but also came out of a legal movement that asserted its independence from both the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. This Article tells the story of these constitutions — the constitutions of Native nations. Having existed for over two centuries with an archive of thousands of constitutional documents and amendments, tribal constitutions have been left out of the narratives of American constitutional history while being obscured within the fields of American constitutional law and federal Indian law. This Article corrects these oversights and calls for the recognition of a tradition of “Indigenous constitutionalism” in the United States. This Article’s aims are both theoretical and historical. On one hand, it conceptualizes Indigenous constitutionalism as a distinct and shared constitutional practice through which Native nations claim and exercise self-governance while embedded in the wider constitutional — and colonial — landscape of the United States. On the other hand, this Article draws Indigenous constitutionalism’s features from the two-hundred-year history of tribal constitutions. It explores, for the first time, three major eras of tribal constitutional development: the first constitutions during the early nineteenth-century period of Indian Removal, the explosion of constitutions under the Indian Reorganization Act in the early twentieth century, and the movement for tribal constitutional reform that has stretched from the late twentieth century to today. But this Article also brings theory and history together to rethink the prevalent narratives surrounding tribal law, federal Indian law, and American constitutionalism. Indigenous constitutionalism reveals the fundamental and persistent questions around which a tribal constitutional law framework can be constructed. It also revises the origin stories of federal Indian law, demonstrating that the field did not coalesce in isolation from tribal law but was actually cocreated with tribal constitutions. Finally, by placing tribal constitutions into conversation with other American charters, Indigenous constitutionalism disrupts and expands the category of constitutionalism itself. This Article demonstrates that tribal constitutions — unique among American constitutions — showcase how these documents can appear in many forms, function as external-facing declarations of sovereignty, and exist alongside other forms of fundamental law.

Living with Treaties Day 3

April 11, 2026Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Blair Topash Morseau, Wenona Singel, Michael Witgen

Annemarie Conway, Joe Erdmann, Kara Johnson, Eric Hemenway

Living with Treaties Day 2, Afternoon Sessions

April 10, 2026Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Maggie Blackhawk, Jim McClurken, Riyaz Kanji, Fletcher

Eric Hemenway, Mae Wright, Emily Proctor

UM Inclusive History Project Symposium “Living with Treaties” Opening Events

April 10, 2026April 10, 2026Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Yesterday evening. . . .

Opening talk show guests: Fletcher, Michael Witgen, Greg Dowd, and Ned Blackhawk (Maggie Blackhawk arrived later)

Conference details here.

Wabanaki Nations Intervene to Defend Maine’s Internet Gaming Law

April 9, 2026Matthew Campbell

On April 1, 2026, the four Wabanaki Nations — the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Mi’kmaq Nation, the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and the Penobscot Nation — represented by the Native American Rights Fund and co-counsel filed an unopposed motion to intervene in Oxford Casino Hotel, et al. v. Champion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. On April 2, 2026, the district court granted the Nations’ motion. The Nations’ intervention ensures their voices are represented in a lawsuit challenging Maine’s new internet gaming law, An Act to Create Economic Opportunity for the Wabanaki Nations Through Internet Gaming, a statute that is important to unique Tribal economic and sovereign interests.

Previous post on this matter is here.

The law, enacted earlier this year, establishes a regulatory framework allowing the Wabanaki Nations to seek licenses to operate internet gaming in Maine. The statute is designed to support Tribal self-determination and create economic opportunities that strengthen the Wabanaki governments and their ability to provide for their communities. The Nations are the direct beneficiaries of the law and have significant sovereign, economic, and constitutional interests at stake in the litigation.

The lawsuit, brought by Oxford Casino Hotel and others, seeks to invalidate the law on constitutional grounds. By granting the Wabanaki Nations’ motion to intervene, the court has allowed the Nations to participate as party defendants to defend the law and protect their unique sovereign right as governments to pursue economic development in order to fund essential government programs, services and infrastructure.

Leaders of the Wabanaki Nations emphasized the importance of intervening to safeguard economic sovereignty and shared prosperity across Maine.

Chief Francis, Penobscot Nation: “Our intervention in Oxford v. Champion is about the future — for our people and for all of rural Maine. This law gives the Penobscot Nation a fair chance to build jobs, fund essential services, and partner across communities to heal long-standing economic disparities, while recognizing our unique politic status as a Tribal Nation. We look forward to the opportunity to defend this law and our right to economic self-determination.”

Chief Sabattis, Houlton Band of Maliseet: “This law is crucial to advancing the Houlton Band’s efforts to develop independent, long-term revenue sources that are not dependent on federal funding and will enable us to support and expand governmental services for Maliseet families and other community members. It is a result of collaboration between the Wabanaki Nations and state government under our unique jurisdictional relationship to create opportunities that will enable the Nations to share in the economic benefits of gaming.”

Chief McCormack, Mi’kmaq Nation: “Rural Maine and our Nations are interconnected. When Tribal economies grow, local businesses, workers, and towns grow too. The Mi’kmaq Nation is proud to stand in court with the other Wabanaki Nations to defend a law that makes that shared prosperity possible.”

Chief Bassett, Passamaquoddy Tribe (Pleasant Point): “The Wabanaki Nations face steeper barriers to prosperity than other Tribes around the country, and we have been historically blocked out of Maine’s casino gaming industry as our peers across Indian country rebuilt their economies and the economies around them using those same economic tools we were deprived of. Defending this law is defending our right to pursue self-determination. We are fighting for a brighter economic future for our future generations.”

Chief Nicholas, Passamaquoddy Tribe (Indian Township): “The Passamaquoddy Tribe has been steadfast in its support of economic sovereignty as its number one priority the past two years in the Maine legislature. We are ready to stand in court to defend a law we were proud to fight for over the past years in the state house. Maine’s new internet gaming law is intended to promote a better economic future for Wabanaki communities and for rural Maine. By protecting this law, we protect our future.”

Native American Rights Fund Staff Attorney Lenny Powell: “The Native American Rights Fund is proud to jointly represent the Wabanaki Nations in efforts to defend ‘An Act to Create Economic Opportunity for the Wabanaki Nations Through Internet Gaming.’ This attack represents an unfortunate effort to undermine Tribal-state partnerships. It seeks to undermine the legal basis for constructive government-to-government policy collaboration, despite decades of data showing that Tribal and non-Tribal communities alike are stronger when Tribal nations are empowered in their pursuit of self-determination.”

Protections continue for Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument

April 9, 2026Matthew Campbell

On April 1, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the Arizona Legislature’s challenge to Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. The decision leaves the monument in place and fully protected. You can see the decision here:

2026-04-01 25-1370 Memorandum – 9th Cir USCA Download

In September of 2024, the District Court denied, without prejudice, the Tribes’ motion to intervene in this case, finding the United States adequately represented the Tribes’ interests at that time. Here is that order:

2024-9-9 DOC 72 Order denying Motions to Intervene Tribal Nations, and Conservation Intervenors, granting State intervenors 4887-3571-0947 v.1 Download

The Ninth Circuit’s April 1 decision affirms the District Court decision dismissing the two consolidated cases filed against the Monument designation.

The National Monument protects thousands of historic and scientific objects, sacred places, vital water sources, and the ancestral homelands of many Indigenous Peoples. Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni lands include cultural and sacred places of the Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Moapa Band of Paiutes, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Navajo Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. The Monument receives its name from the Indigenous names given to the area by the Havasupai and Hopi. Baaj nwaavjo (BAAHJ – NUH-WAAHV-JOH) means “where Indigenous peoples roam” in the Havasupai language, and i’tah kukveni (EE-TAH – KOOK-VENNY) means “our ancestral footprints” in the Hopi language.

Learn More: Arizona Legislature v. Biden

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

March 25, 2026Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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.

Recommended. I agree that Elk v. Wilkins wrongly decided. The opinion is filthy with rank bigotry and deserves no serious consideration, the reality of which is proven in the horrific, bigoted manner in which the Department of Justice is defending Trump’s birthright citizenship order by relying on Elk‘s application of a racial caste system. And wouldn’t it be nice if Indigenous Peoples, like all people, have the right to consent to or reject American citizenship?