Nope, gambling doesn’t make Indians healthier. Having a little change in your jeans does. We reported on a similar study limited to the EBCI here.
The study is The Income and Health Effects of Tribal Casino Gaming on American Indians, 49 Demography 499 (2012).
If you want a copy, send me an email.
Supplementary materials to the article are here:
Derek H. Kauanoe and Breann Swann Nuʻuhiwa have published “We Are Who We Thought We Were: Congress’ Authority to Recognize a Native Hawaiian Polity United by Common Descent” (pdf) in the Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal. Here is the abstract:
In an attempt to fulfill the federal government’s moral imperative, the United States Congress has spent more than a decade considering several proposed versions of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (colloquially referred to as the “Akaka Bill”), which seeks to restore a small measure of Native Hawaiian self-governing authority by providing a process for the formal federal acknowledgment of a reorganized Native Hawaiian governing entity. The proposed Act changes significantly with each new Congress, but from its initial introduction in 2000 to the present, the Act has consistently required that the initial reorganization of the Native Hawaiian polity be carried out by the Native Hawaiian community, united by common Native Hawaiian descent without regard to blood quantum.
Today, I will be make a presentation at the 2012 American Law Institute annual meeting (agenda here) in support of a proposed restatement or principles project on American Indian Law.
I organized a meeting on behalf of the ALI in March here in D.C. to discuss whether the ALI could effectively contribute the field (coverage of the meeting is here):
On March 29, the Institute hosted a conference on American Indian law at The Mayflower in Washington, DC, to discuss whether the ALI could produce work that would have a positive impact in the area of American Indian law. Among those attending the meeting, moderated by Professor Matthew L.M. Fletcher of Michigan State University College of Law, were government officials, judges, practitioners, and law professors with expertise in the field, including Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler; Arvo Mikkanen of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Oklahoma; Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender for the District of Arizona; Judges William Cameron Canby, Jr., and William A. Fletcher of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; Judge Diane P. Wood, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; Patricia Ann Millett of Akin Gump in Washington, DC; John E. Echohawk of the Native American Rights Fund; Dean Kevin K. Washburn of the University of New Mexico School of Law; and Dean Stacy L. Leeds of the University of Arkansas School of Law.
This information is from a presentation I gave today at the Minnesota CLE.
In 2011 there were 199 ICWA cases (249 in the allstate-cs Westlaw database using “Indian Child Welfare Act” search. 50 were not ICWA cases.). Of those 122 (61%) were California notice or inquiry cases. This is less than the last time we checked in 2007 (308 cases). The state continues to remand nearly 50% of all the notice cases (58 remanded, 48%). The only state even close to California on notice cases is Michigan, with 8 last year, and 5 remanded.
Of the family lore cases, there was only one additional case in 2011 from the same lower court as the others and none in 2012.
I just posted on SSRN a short paper I prepared for the National Native Law Students Association annual meeting career panel last month at the Pojoaque Pueblo: “On Becoming an American Indian Law Professor.” Here is the abstract:
There are only a few dozen American Indians who are enrolled tribal members who are tenure system law professors in American law schools. In fact, in our quick review of the American Association of Law Schools roster of teachers who list themselves as Native American Law instructors, we found fewer than 30 tribal members who are currently tenure system law professors. We study this group, as well as a few known tribal members who have either retired or left the academy for loftier pursuits, for purposes of identifying the profiles of tribally enrolled American Indians on the tenure track in American law schools. The object of this short paper is to advise American Indian law students and others on how to become an American Indian law professor.
I wrote this before all the Elizabeth Warren stuff came out. There’s more to say about that, I suppose, but that’s for another time.
Heather J. Tanana and John C. Ruple have published “Energy Development in Indian Country: Working within the Realm of Indian Law and Moving Towards Collaboration” in the Utah Environmental Law Review.
Tom Fredericks and Andrea Aseff have published “When Did Congress Deem Indian Lands Public Lands?: The Problem of BLM Exercising Oil ad Gas Regulatory Jurisdiction in Indian Country” in the Energy Law Journal.
From the synopsis:
While the BLM has been asserting regulatory jurisdiction over oil and gas development on Indian lands for approximately twenty years, it should not be. Congress charged the BLM with regulating oil and gas and other activities on public lands, specifically for multiple use and sustained yield in accordance with land use plans the agency develops. Indian lands are not public lands. This article seeks to address whether Congress charged the BLM with regulating oil and gas development on Indian lands. After an exhaustive legal analysis, the authors found that the BLM likely lacks statutory authority to regulate oil and gas on Indian lands. This is significant because the BLM’s congressional mandate and implementing regulations to manage public lands contain restrictive management standards and requirements that Congress did not intend to apply to Indian lands, while adding another layer of regulatory requirements to an already complicated and extensive regime.
Here.
This is an incredibly useful and accessible website dedicated to the late Dean’s scholarship.
Towards a Balanced Approach for the Protection of Native American Sacred Sites
Here. (pdf)
From the abstract:
Protection of “sacred sites” is very important to Native American religious practitioners because it is intrinsically tied to the survival of their cultures, and there fore to their survival as distinct peoples. The Supreme Court in Oregon v. Smith held that rational basis review, and not strict scrutiny, was the appropriate level of judicial review when evaluating the constitutionality of neutral laws of general applicability even when these laws impacted one’s ability to practice a religion. Reacting to the decision, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which reinstated the strict scrutiny test for challenges to neutral laws of general applicability alleged to have substantially burdened free exercise rights. In a controversial 2008 decision, the Ninth Circuit held that a “substantial burden” under RFRA is only imposed when individuals are either coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs or forced to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit. In all likelihood, such a narrow definition of substantial burden will prevent Native American practitioners from successfully invoking RFRA to protect their sacred sites.
In this article, I first explore whether the Ninth Circuit’s definition of “substantial burden” is mandated under RFRA. To a large degree this question comes down to whether a pre-RFRA Supreme Court decision, Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery, precludes courts from adopting a broader definition of what is a substantial burden under RFRA. Although this Article contends that neither Lyng nor RFRA precludes the adoption of a broader definition of “substantial burden,” the Article nevertheless acknowledges that many judges may disagree. The Article therefore recommends enactment of a legislative solution.
Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted “Priceless Property,” forthcoming from the Georgia State University Law Review, on SSRN. Highly recommended!
Here is the abstract:
In 2011, the poorest Indians in the United States refused to accept over $1 billion dollars from the United States government. They reiterated their long held belief that money – even $1.3 billion dollars – could not compensate them for the taking of their beloved Black Hills. A closer look at the formation of the Sioux claim to the Black Hills helps us to understand why the Sioux Nation has repeatedly rejected over $1 billion dollars in compensation for land taken by the United States over 100 years ago. This article seeks to understand why the Sioux view the Black Hills as priceless by studying the formation of the Black Hills claim. It constructs a new, richer approach to understanding dispute formation by combining narrative analysis with the sociolegal framework for explaining dispute formation. The article argues that narratives enrich the naming, claiming, and blaming stages of dispute creation and illustrates the usefulness of this new approach through a case study of the Black Hills claim. It uses the autobiographical work of an ordinary Sioux woman to provide a narrative lens to the creation of the Sioux claim to the Black Hills. American Indian Stories by Zitkala-Sa presents a narrative of Sioux life around the time of the claims emergence. By contextualizing and humanizing the claim, my analysis provides insights into why the Sioux claim to the Black Hills emerged into a legal dispute and helps to explain why the Black Hills remain priceless property to the Sioux Nation today.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.