Michigan Indian – Page 8

2025 UM Native Studies Conference (Feb. 21-22, 2025): “The Next 25: The Self-Determination Era and the Future of Indian Affairs”

January 31, 2025February 23, 2025Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. Register here.

Featured Events:

Day One: Friday, February 21 – Palmer Commons

Welcome Protocol
Forum Hall 1:00-1:30 PM

Panel 1 The Past and Future of Indigenous Politics
with Bryan Newland and Jeff Irwin,

Forum Hall 1:30 – 3:00 PM

Panel 2: Lawyering Tribal Self-Determination
with Wenona T. Singel, Doreen Nanibaa McPaul, and Mitchell Forbes,
Forum Hall 3:15 – 4:45 PM

Dinner for symposium participants.
Great Lakes Room 5:00 – 6:30 PM

Great Lakes Room 7:00 – 9:30 PM
An Evening with Mark Trahant,
The 2025 Robert F. Berkhofer Jr. lecture on Native American Studies
Followed by reception

Day Two: Saturday, February 22 – Michigan Union

Guest Arrival,
Anderson ABCD 8:00 – 9:00 AM

Breakfast
Anderson ABCD 9:00 – 10:00 AM

Panel 3: Indigenous Judging in Tribal and State Courts
with Gregory H. Bigler and Allie Greenleaf Maldonado,
Anderson ABCD 10:00 – 11:30 AM

Lunch
Anderson ABCD 11:30 AM – 12:30 PM

Keynote Address by Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis,
Pendleton Room 12:30 – 1:45 PM

Panel 4: International Indigenous Leadership
with Kyle Powys Whyte, Kristen Carpenter, and Mark Trahant
Pendleton Room 2:00 – 3:30 PM

The Next 25: The Self-Determination Era and the Future of Indian Affairs

A symposium on the 50th anniversary of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act

Our symposium is inspired by the 50th anniversary of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, the cornerstone statute establishing the tribal self-determination era. The first quarter century of the self-determination era featured many great successes but mostly great frustrations often caused by federal reluctance to empower tribal nations. The second quarter century featured the rise of tribal political and economic power, but many of the same frustrations, this time more often caused by judicial decisions. As always, Indigenous leaders look to both the past and the future in consequential decisions for their nations. This symposium brings together many of today’s most influential Indigenous leaders to assess the last fifty years and imagine what the next quarter century brings. Panelists include Indigenous elected officials, judges, and lawyers at the federal, state, and Tribal levels.

Washington Supreme Court Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis, a citizen of the Pueblo of Isleta and a descendant of the Pueblo of Laguna, will deliver a keynote address on Saturday.

“The Three Lives of Mamengwaa: Toward an Indigenous Canon of Construction” Article Now Published By Yale

January 31, 2025Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Abstract:

For too long, tribal judiciaries have been an afterthought in the story of tribal self-determination. Until the last half-century, many tribal nations relied on federally administered courts or had no court systems at all. As tribal nations continue to develop their law-enforcement and police powers, tribal justice systems now play a critical role in tribal self-determination. But because tribal codes and constitutions tend to borrow extensively from federal and state law, tribal judges find themselves forced to apply and enforce laws that are poor cultural fits for Indian communities—an unfortunate reality that hampers tribal judges’ ability to regulate and improve tribal governance.

Even where tribal legislatures leave room for tribal judges to apply tribal customary law, the results are haphazard at best. This Article surveys a sample of tribal-court decisions that have used customary law to regulate tribal governance. Tribal judges have interpreted customary law when it is expressly incorporated into tribal positive law, they have looked to customary law to provide substantive rules of decision, and they have relied on customary law as an interpretive tool. Reliance on customary law is ascendant, but still rare, in tribal courts.

Recognizing that Indian country will continue to rely on borrowed laws, and aiming to empower tribal courts to advance tribal governance, this Article proposes that tribal judges adopt an Indigenous canon of construction of tribal laws. Elevating a thirty-year-old taxonomy first articulated by Chief Justice Irvin in Stepetin v. Nisqually Indian Community, this Article recommends that tribal judges seek out and apply tribal customary law in cases where (1) the relevant doctrine arose in federal or state statutes or common law; (2) the tribal nation has not explicitly adopted federal or state law on a given issue in writing; (3) written tribal law was adopted or shifted as a result of the colonizer’s pressure and interests; and (4) tribal custom is inconsistent with the written tribal law, most especially if the law violates the relational philosophies of that tribal nation. Tribal judiciaries experienced at applying tribal customary law will be better positioned to do justice in Indian country.

5Qs: Matthew Fletcher Discusses His New Short Story Collection

January 22, 2025Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Ann Arbor District Library: “On Anishinaabe Land: Treaties with Indigenous Nations and the Founding of Ann Arbor”

December 31, 2024Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Blast from the Past: News Coverage of Wandahsega/Hannahville Indian Community Pre-ICWA Indian Child Welfare Victory over Michigan Social Services

December 18, 2024Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here from Neshnawbe News, Nov./Dec. 1973:

Here is the decision.

Blast from the Past: Victoria Barner’s Suit against Michigamua and U of M

December 15, 2024Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Nishnawbe News [NMU], Summer 1972:

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Haaland Cert Petition [all cert stage briefs]

December 11, 2024April 10, 2025Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Petition.pdf Download

Questions presented:

The Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (“MILCSA”) established a Self-Sufficiency Fund for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians to receive judgment funds that settled claims against the United States for the unconscionable taking of tribal lands. The statute, which codified a negotiated agreement between the Tribe and the United States, gave the Tribe’s Board of Directors exclusive authority over the Self-Sufficiency Fund, including determinations about the proper use of Fund capital and interest. The broad purposes for which the Tribe may expend Fund interest under MILCSA include the “enhancement of tribal lands.” §108(c)(5). And MILCSA requires the Secretary of the Interior to hold in trust “[a]ny lands” acquired with Fund interest. §108(f). The questions presented are:

Whether Congress delegated to the Department of the Interior under MILCSA the authority to reject a mandatory trust submission based on the agency’s own view about whether the purchase of land satisfied §108(c), notwithstanding the statutory command that “[a]ny lands acquired using amounts from interest or other income of the [Tribe’s] Self-Sufficiency Fund shall be held in trust by the Secretary [of the Interior] for the benefit of the tribe.” §108(f).
Whether “enhancement of tribal lands” in §108(c)(5) of MILCSA includes a land acquisition that adds to or augments the size of the Tribe’s total landholdings.

Lower court materials here.

Additional briefs:

cert_opposition