Legislation – Page 23

I find it odd that there’s such a heavy reliance on the testimony from the 1960s in the years leading to the passage of the Indian Civil Rights Act in this letter. Barbara Creel’s work is much more formidable and persuasive, probably because it’s not such a direct assault on all tribal courts using such broad (and now largely inaccurate) generalizations. Later this week, I’ll be presenting a paper about the 1977-79 NAICJA study on tribal courts where David Getches pointed out the direct analogy between tribal and rural justices systems — that analogy is still present, with all its plusses and minuses. I am persuaded that that’s a much more direct analysis (see also here). Most tribal courts aren’t going to be like federal courts; neither are magistrates and JOPs in rural New York or Iowa or Arizona.

Tova Indritz’s efforts to criticize the Tribal Law and Order Act a few years back are in this hearing:

TLO House Judiciary Hearing (Dec 2009)

Informational Handouts on Tribal Govt. Provisions of VAWA Reauthorization

April 23, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

VAWA protections for suspects of abuse (04-17-12)

VAWA Combat DV Locally

Letter from Law Professors: “Constitutionality of Tribal Government Provisions in VAWA Reauthorization”

April 23, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

VAWA Letter from Law Professors – Tribal Provisions

Lyle Dennison (SCOTUSblog) Commentary on Ramah Argument

April 19, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

No one suggested during a Supreme Court hearing that Congress had done a dumb thing in the way it has treated Indian tribes as partners (the most critical comment was that Congress had acted in a “schizophrenic” way), but sheer irrationality was what seemed to be troubling the Justices. On the one hand, Congress told the government it had to accept every contract offered by an Indian tribe to provide government services. But, on the other hand, it said every year that the government could not pay for everything it got in return. On Wednesday, the Court was trying to figure out what to do about that — other than simply handing the problem back to Congress (an option that did get discussed). The argument came in the case of Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, et al. (docket 11-551)