Scholarship

Second Addendum — All the Supreme Court Citations to Indian Law Articles

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the second addendum — all the Indian law (and some history and politics) articles cited by the Supreme Court going back to 1959, and the case/opinion in which they were cited. The original list was here and the first addendum here.

Anders, Indians, Energy, and Economic Development, 9 J. Contemp. Business 57 (1980).

* Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989) – 1 time by dissent (Blackmun)

Ansson,  State Taxation of Non–Indians Who Do Business With Indian Tribes: Why Several Recent Ninth Circuit Holdings Reemphasize the Need for Indian Tribes to Enter Into Taxation Compacts With Their Respective States, 78 Ore. L.Rev. 501, 546 (1999)

* Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) – 1 time in Ginsburg dissent

Barsh, The Illusion of Religious Freedom for Indigenous Americans, 65 Ore.L.Rev. 363, 369-374 (1986)

* Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) – 1 time by dissent (Blackmun)

Benjamin, Equal Protection and the Special Relationship: The Case of Native Hawaiians, 106 Yale L.J. 537 (1996)

* Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000) – 1 time by majority (Kennedy)

 Berger, Indian Mineral Interest-A Potential for Economic Advancement, 10 Ariz.L.Rev. 675 (1968)

* Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972) – 1 time by dissent (Douglas)

Burnett, An Historical Analysis of the 1968 “Indian Civil Rights” Act, 9 Harv.J.Legis. 557, 574-602, 603 (1972)

* Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) – 1 time by majority (Marshall)

Burke, The Cherokee Cases: A Study in Law, Politics, and Morality, 21 Stan.L.Rev. 500 (1969)

* United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978) – 1 time by majority (Blackmun)

* Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620 (1970) – 1 time by majority (Marshall)

Campisi, The Oneida Treaty Period, 1783–1838, in The Oneida Indian Experience: Two Perspectives 48, 59 (J. Campisi & L. Hauptman eds.1988) 

* City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005) – 2 times in majority (Ginsburg)

 

Chambers & Price, Regulating Sovereignty: Secretarial Discretion and the Leasing of Indian Lands, 26 Stan. L.Rev. 1061, 1061-1068 (1974)

* United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) – 1 time in Souter dissent

* Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237 (1985) – 1 time by dissent (Brennan)

 

Clinton, Isolated in Their Own Country: A Defense of Federal Protection of Indian Autonomy and Self-Government, 33 Stan. L.Rev. 979, 1002-1003 (1981)

* United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) – 1 time in Souter dissent

Clinton, Criminal Jurisdiction Over Indian Lands: A Journey Through a Jurisdictional Maze, 18 Ariz.L.Rev. 505 (1976)

* Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990) – 1 time in majority (Kennedy)

Clinton & Hotopp, Judicial Enforcement of the Federal Restraints on Alienation of Indian Land: The Origins of the Eastern Land Claims, 31 Me. L.Rev. 17, 23–38 (1979)

* City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005) – 1 time in majority (Ginsburg)

* Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261 (1997) – 1 time in Souter dissent

* South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, 476 U.S. 498 (1986) – 2 times by dissent (Blackmun)

* County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) – 2 times by majority (Powell)

Cohen, Original Indian Title, 32 Minn.L.Rev. 28 (1947)

* South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, 476 U.S. 498 (1986) – 1 time by dissent (Blackmun)

* County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) – 1 time by majority (Powell)

* United States v. Dann, 470 U.S. 39 (1985) – 2 times by majority (Brennan)

Cohen, Indian Rights and the Federal Courts, 24 Minn.L.Rev. 145, 153 (1940)

* Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60 (1962) – 1 time by majority (Frankfurter)

Cohen, Spanish Origin of Indian Rights, 31 Geo.L.J. 1 (1942)

* United States v. Dann, 470 U.S. 39 (1985) – 1 time by majority (Brennan)

* Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982) – 1 time by majority (Marshall)

Continue reading →

First Addendum to Supreme Court Citations to Indian Law Scholarship: Treatises and Casebooks

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

You’ve seen the list of most-cited scholarship. Here are more detailed lists. This one lists the legal authority, followed by the list of cases/opinions that cite the authority.

Cohen 2005

* United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S. Ct. 2313 (2011) – 6 times by majority (Alito); 4 times by Sotomayor dissent

* Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009) – 1 time (Stevens dissent)

Cohen 1982

* City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005) – 1 time in majority (Ginsburg)

* United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004) – 5 times by majority (Breyer)

* Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) – 3 times by Souter concurrence

* Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. 262 (2001) – 1 time by majority (Souter)

* Dept. of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Assn., 532 U.S. 1 (2001) – 1 time by majority (Souter)

* Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000) – 1 time by Stevens dissent

* Cass County v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 524 U.S. 103 (1998) – 1 time by majority (Thomas)

* Babbitt v. Youpee, 519 U.S. 234 (1998) – 2 times by majority (Ginsburg)

* Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) – 1 time by majority (SOC); 2 times by dissent (Blackmun)

* Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac and Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993) – 1 time in majority (SOC)

* Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99 (1993) – 1 time in majority (Rehnquist)

* County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (1992) – 3 times by majority (Scalia); 2 times by dissent (Blackmun)

* Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 (1991) – 1 time in dissent (Blackmum)

* Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990) – 5 times by majority (Kennedy)

* Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 494 U.S. 408 (1989) – 3 times by Stevens; 1 time by Blackmun

* Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989) – 1 time by dissent (Blackmun)

* Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) – 1 time in majority (Brennan)

* Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987) – 1 time by majority (White)

* Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9 (1987) – 1 time by majority (Marshall)

* Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold, 476 U.S. 877 (1986) – 2 times by majority (SOC)

* United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834 (1986) – 1 time by majority (Blackmun)

* United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986) – 4 times by majority (Marshall)

* South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, 476 U.S. 498 (1986) – 2 times by dissent (Blackmun)

* Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237 (1985) – 8 times by dissent (Brennan)

* National Farmers Union v. Crow, 471 U.S. 845 (1985) – 2 times by majority (Stevens)

* County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) – 2 times by majority (Powell)

* National Farmers Union v. Crow Tribe, 468 U.S. 1315 (1984) – 1 time by majority (Rehnquist)

* Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering, 467 U.S. 138 (1984) – 2 times by majority (Blackmun)

* Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) – 1 time by majority (Marshall)

* Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983) – 2 times by majority (SOC); 4 times by dissent (Blackmun)

* Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 604 (1983) – 2 times by dissent (Brennan)

Continue reading →

New Scholarship on Pequot Orator William Apess

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Burke Hendrix has posted, “What to the Indian is the Fourth of July? – William Apess in Democratic Context” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Theorists who investigate the idea of “the people” in democratic theory often focus on the ways in which excluded groups seek to become full members of the more encompassing demos. This approach is especially pronounced when historical figures in American political thought are considered. Frederick Douglass is often seen as an exemplar, in seeking to foster a vision of the American demos that did not yet exist at the time of his speeches and writings. Yet those who attempted to shape visions of the American demos did not always seek inclusion – in the case of many American Indian actors, they sought instead a measured political separation. This paper will investigate the attempts of Pequot orator William Apess to shape a vision of the American nation and of separate Indian nations in the 1820’s and 1830’s. The essay will look particularly at Apess’s attempt to claim moral citizenship in the human community without claiming political citizenship in the United States, and will consider the challenges posed by this attempt to claim political equality without political membership. The essay will focus especially on Apess’s “An Indian’s Looking-Glass for the White Man” (1833) and his “Eulogy on King Philip” (1836), while seeking to put them within the context of David Walker’s work on race in America and the Cherokees’ attempt to resist government-mandated Removal.

2011 Teacher’s Memorandum Available for Getches et al. Sixth Edition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

We’ve already had to update the Sixth edition of Getches, Wilkinson, Williams, and Fletcher’s Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law.

We’ve add the new Supreme Court trust case, United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, and excerpts from three lower court cases — Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham, Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance, and Chickasaw Nation v. NLRB.

Contact me at matthew.fletcher@law.msu.edu if you need a copy of the Teacher’s Memorandum.

And have a good semester.

 

Supreme Court Citations to Indian Law Scholarship

Matthew L.M. Fletcher7 Comments

In light of recent commentaries about the value (or lack thereof) of legal scholarship (here) and new scholarship about the frequency the Supreme Court Justices cite to legal scholarship (it’s rather a lot), we thought it would be fun to list some findings about the Supreme Court’s citations of Indian law scholarship going back to 1959.

We’ll look later at the frequency of citations overall in later work.

Treatises and Casebooks

First, let’s get the Cohen Handbook out of the way. We have a liberal definition of legal scholarship (no pun intended). The numbers in parentheses are number of cases, and number of citations):

Cohen 2005 — 2 cases, 11 citations [U.S. v Jicarilla Apache had 10 cites alone — guess the Court is finally reading the thing]

Cohen 1982 — 31, 72

Cohen 1958 [actually, Dept. of Interior rewrite] — 20, 40

Cohen 1940/1940/1942/1945 — 15, 29

Overall, the Handbook of Federal Indian Law in all its incarnations has been cited in 68 cases, for a total of 152 citations.

Law and the American Indian/American Indian Law

Price, 1973 edition — 3 cases, 4 citations

Price & Clinton, 1983 edition — 1 case, 1 cite

Clinton, Newton, and Price, 1991 edition — 1 case, 1 cite

Getches, Wilkinson, and Williams on Federal Indian Law — 1 case, 1 cite

Canby Nutshell — 1998 edition — 1 case, 1 cite

Mills, Oklahoma Indian Land Laws (1924) — 1 case, 1 cite

Law Review Article/Book Authors

Leading Repeat Players: There aren’t very many of these. Most articles or books cited are one and done. Here are the top repeat players,  their articles, and the opinions that cite them:

Continue reading →

Top 25 Most Cited Indian Law/Tribal Law Articles (HeinOnline)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Yesterday we did the Westlaw numbers, and today we’ll do the HeinOnline numbers (with no. of cites in parens again):

  1. (256) Nell Jessup Newton, Federal Power over Indians: Its Sources, Scope, and Limitations, 132 U. Pa. L. Rev. 195 (1984)
  2. (209) Reid Peyton Chambers, Judicial Enforcement of the Federal Trust Responsibility to Indians, 27 Stan. L. Rev. 1213 (1975)
  3. (206) Robert A. Williams, Jr., The Algebra of Federal Indian Law: The Hard Trail of Decolonizing and Americanizing the White Man’s Indian Jurisprudence, 1986 Wis. L. Rev. 219
  4. (187) Carole E. Goldberg, Public Law 280: The Limits of State Jurisdiction over Reservation Indians, 22 UCLA L. Rev. 535 (1975)
  5. (175) Philip P. Frickey, Marshalling Past and Present: Colonialism, Constitutionalism, and Interpretation in Federal Indian Law, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 381 (1993)
  6. (172) Judith Resnik, Dependent Sovereigns: Indian Tribes, States, and the Federal Courts, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 671 (1989)
  7. (163) Joseph C. Burke, The Cherokee Cases: A Study in Law, Politics, and Morality, 21 Stan L. Rev. 500 (1969)
  8. (157) Felix S. Cohen, Original Indian Title, 32 Minn. L. Rev. 29 (1947)
  9. (142) Charles F. Wilkinson & John M. Volkman, Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation: As Long as Water Flows, or Grass Grows Upon the Earth–How Long a Time is That?, 63 Cal. L. Rev. 601 (1975)
  10. (134) Sarah H. Cleveland, Powers Inherent in Sovereignty: Indians, Aliens, Territories, and the Nineteenth Century Origins of Plenary Power over Foreign Affairs, 81 Tex. L. Rev. 1 (2002) Continue reading →

Top 25 Most-Cited Federal Indian Law/Tribal Law Articles

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Just for fun, here they are (with no. of cites in parens):

  1. (220) Nell Jessup Newton, Federal Power over Indians: Its Sources, Scope, and Limitations, 132 U. Pa. L. Rev. 195 (1984)
  2. (209) Robert A. Williams, Jr., The Algebra of Federal Indian Law: The Hard Trail of Decolonizing and Americanizing the White Man’s Indian Jurisprudence, 1986 Wis. L. Rev. 219
  3. (192) Judith Resnik, Dependent Sovereigns: Indian Tribes, States, and the Federal Courts, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 671 (1989)
  4. (192) Philip P. Frickey, Marshalling Past and Present: Colonialism, Constitutionalism, and Interpretation in Federal Indian Law, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 381 (1993)
  5. (169) Reid Peyton Chambers, Judicial Enforcement of the Federal Trust Responsibility to Indians, 27 Stan. L. Rev. 1213 (1975)
  6. (148) David H. Getches, Conquering the Cultural Frontier: The New Subjectivism of the Supreme Court in Indian Law, 84 Cal. L. Rev. 1573 (1996)
  7. (147) Judith V. Royster, The Legacy of Allotment, 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1 (1995)
  8. (146) Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 Cal. L. Rev. 1137 (1990)
  9. (144) Philip P. Frickey, A Common Law for Our Age of Colonialism: The Judicial Divestiture of Indian Tribal Authority over Nonmembers, 109 Yale L.J. 1 (1999)
  10. (141) Joseph William Singer, Sovereignty and Property, 86 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1 (1991) Continue reading →

Jacob Levy on Indigenous Rights, Modern Political Concepts, and the State

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Jacob Levy has posted his new paper, “Indigenous Rights, Modern Political Concepts, and the State,” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

This paper considers the relationship of indigenous rights to four foundational principles of modern political theory: sovereignty, the nation, property, and constitutionalism. All took their familiar intellectual forms as the European state was crystallizing – and as European states were embarking on their imperial projects around the world. All were reshaped by both the development of the state and the European encounter with indigenous peoples. The absolutist idea of state sovereignty, developed as the modern Weberian state was crystallizing in Europe, was deeply connected with the justifications of imperial power that could lawfully conquer, expropriate, and kill indigenous peoples. The subsequent joining of the idea of the nation to state sovereignty heightened the latter’s absolutism. Settler states conceived as sovereign unitary nation-states left no normative legal space for indigenous rights, and indeed were profoundly hostile to them. By contrast, property and constitutionalism drew on natural law ideas and pluralist political traditions and were sometimes developed in ways that made room for indigenous rights, even as rival interpretations were developed in ways that subordinated both property and constitutionalism to state sovereignty. The paper argues that both nationhood and sovereignty are problematic ways to conceive of indigenous rights today, and that property and constitutionalism offer the more promising foundation.

Grant Christensen on Individual Justice Voting Patterns in Indian Law Cases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Grant Christensen has posted his wonderful paper, “Judging Indian Law: What Factors Influence Individual Justice’s Votes on Indian Law in the Modern Era,” forthcoming in the University of Toledo Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Scholars of the Supreme Court often use a justice’s political ideology to predict their ultimate vote on Constitutional questions. While this approach may serve scholars well when questions involve hot button civil liberties issues that are the focus of confirmation hearings, ideology is in actuality a poor predictor of judicial behavior in other areas of law. This paper looks at one of the more complex – Federal Indian Law – and uses both descriptive statistics and more advanced quantitative analysis to go beyond the pure ideology and explain why individual Justices vote the way they do. Using the Fisher Exact Test, and a comprehensive new database of Indian Law decisions, I demonstrate that contrary to common expectations, factors like the Solicitor General’s participation are not significant in swaying an individual Justice’s vote, while factors like being the appellant party and certified questions of conflicting jurisdiction do statistically significantly alter an individual Justice’s vote on the merits. These factors provide better insight into the ultimate outcome – at a Justice level – of Indian law decisions before the Court, and can be used by parties to predict future Supreme Court outcomes on Indian law questions.

I had a chance to read an earlier version of this paper. Prof. Christensen expands upon a magical science — predicting Supreme Court Justice voting patterns — that has typically been dominated by discussions about ideology. He rightfully tries to move away from that limited view of judicial voting patterns. And as any observer of Indian law knows, ideology breaks down significantly in Indian law cases. Thoughtful, rigorous work.

Journal Article Evaluates Treaty Provisions and their Import for Michigan Indian Education

Singel1 Comment

From the Indigenous Policy Journal’s Winter 2010 issue (link to article here).

The article, titled “The Treaty Basis of Michigan Indian Education,” was authored by Martin Reinhardt and John Tippeconnic, III.

Here’s the abstract:

A socio-historical content analysis of 16 treaties and 3 contemporary American Indian education laws at the federal level revealed that a certain amount of the treaty obligation may yet be unfulfilled regarding tribes currently located within the State of Michigan. Both monetary and non-monetary provisions were analyzed using the United States Supreme Court’s Canons of Treaty Construction. The treaty provisions were further categorized according to certain criteria based on the trust doctrine. The outcomes of the treaty analysis were then compared to the provisions of the Indian Education Act, the Indian Self-Determination & Education Assistance Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Responsibilities of each level of government, implications for school policy and procedures, and recommendations for further study are included.