Judge William Canby’s Indian law-related tribute to Judge Betty Fletcher appears in the Washington Law Review. Here is the article:
Scholarship
New Scholarship on Gaming and Tribal Membership
Suzianne Painter-Thorne has published “If You Build It, They Will Come: Preserving Tribal Sovereignty in the Face of Indian Casinos and the New Face of Tribal Membership” in the Lewis & Clark Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
This Article considers recent disputes over membership decisions made by American Indian tribal governments. Since Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, Indian casinos have flourished on some tribal reservations. Some argue that the new wealth brought by casinos has increased fights over membership as tribes seek to expel current members or refuse to admit new members. It is difficult to discern whether there are more disputes over tribal enrollment as a consequence of gaming or whether such disputes are now more public because gaming has brought tribes to the forefront of U.S. culture. What is clear is that enrollment disputes are receiving increased attention, resulting in calls for some change to address what many perceive as a fundamental unfairness in tribal decision making.
Aggrieved members’ attempts to resort to federal or state court are blocked due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, standing, and because of the tribes’ sovereign immunity. Activists and courts have sought to change this, seeking to curtail the tribes’ sovereign immunity, expand federal court jurisdiction to permit oversight, or otherwise impose U.S. law on tribal membership decisions. Scholars are divided, with some arguing for the abrogation of immunity or sovereignty, while others argue that the tribes’ decisions are sacrosanct. Still others argue over how the tribes should define membership–contending that it should be based on cultural identity, political participation, blood quantity, or even DNA.
This Article argues that the focus should instead be on solutions that come from within the tribes. For too long the tribes have suffered from the imposition of legal and cultural norms that do not reflect their identity or culture. Because a tribe’s right to define its membership lies at the heart of its sovereignty, the solution is more, not less, sovereignty for the tribes. To remedy the impasse, I propose that tribes create separate independent judicial bodies, or an intertribal appellate court that would provide independent review of tribal membership decisions.
Reminder: Frank Pommersheim Event on March 23
Ron Whitener on Tribal Control of Research
Ron Whitener has posted his paper, “Research In Native American Communities in the Genetics Age: Can the Federal Data Sharing Statute of General Applicability and Tribal Control of Research be Reconciled?” on ExpressO. Here is the abstract:
Since colonization, the populations indigenous to the United States of America have been an enticing subject for researchers of all types. Geographic continuity with traditional homelands and traceable blood quantum requirements for tribal membership provide a unique connection to the past for researchers studying a broad array of topics from epidemiology to religion. In recent years, the explosion of discoveries in the field of genomic research has led to even greater interest in the United States’ Native communities by both commercial and scientific interests. Firms have sprung up offering genetic tests claiming the ability to detect Native American Ancestry. National Institutes of Health has identified minority health disparities research as a high priority and the National Human Genome Research Institute has identified genetic research addressing health disparities in minority communities as a significant focus. Native Americans currently suffer some of the most marked health disparities among all U.S. races. Through genomic research, knowledge of the genetic contribution to many diseases is rapidly expanding and offers the potential for many promising advances in health care. Without research participation from Native American individuals, this population may be excluded from some of the health benefits of genetic research. Researcher access to Native American participants is problematic. Unethical and undesirable research practices have led to distrust and conflict between Native populations and outside researchers, especially when considered alongside the extensive history of wars, plagues, and broken treaties inflicted on Native Americans and tribal governments. The ethical concerns relating to the treatment of human research subjects and the data derived from them have largely been concerned with protecting the health, safety and privacy of the individual research subjects and protecting the ability of researchers to freely study samples provided to them by research participants. Where Native American subjects are involved, however, an additional variable must be factored into the ethical calculus: the sovereign authority of federally-recognized tribal governments over Native American research participants and researchers themselves. This article will examine several case studies highlighting the history of research conflicts to provide a context for Native American concerns with free researcher access to tribal members and their data. It will look at the federal law related to sharing of data collected with federal funding and NIH’s implementation of that law, including specific data sharing policies related to genetic research. It will examine whether these data sharing laws should be preempted from applying to data collected from tribal communities. Finally it will provide an example of a tribal research code which maximizes the ability to preempt the data sharing laws but also provides a framework for research conducted under tribal regulatory authority and for sharing of tribal data, whether they be stories or tissue samples.
New Scholarship on “Deadwood”
Michael B. Kent Jr. and Lance McMillian have posted “The World of Deadwood: Property Rights and the Search for Human Identity” on SSRN (h/t Law & Humanities Blog). The abstract:
The year is 1876. Gold has been discovered in the fledgling camp of Deadwood, bringing hordes of new arrivals each day seeking to strike it rich. The allure of wealth is coupled with the allure of complete autonomy. There is no law. Although part of the United States, Deadwood is unaffiliated with any existing territorial government. It is free. Or is it? From this backdrop, HBO’s highly-acclaimed drama Deadwood springs forth. Series creator David Milch is frank about his mission behind the story: to explore how order arises from chaos. The assignment and protection of property rights play central roles in this journey from anarchy to law. In the world of Deadwood, where ownership of land can be worth millions, law’s promise and law’s pitfalls are both on full display. The stakes are high; the lessons are many.
Stories are powerful teaching tools because they marry information and context. Film and television also supply a picture of law in action, marshalling the power of the visual to make law more real, less abstract. Because of its rich complexity and invocation of ancient debates over what property is and who rightly can be deemed to own it, the three-season run of Deadwood provides fertile ground for this type of interdisciplinary study. Deadwood demonstrates that the interrelationship between property and law is complex, with many moving pieces and many valid points and counterpoints. Property has both naturalist and positivist attributes, it both pre-exists and coexists with the state, it is about economic power and personal identity, it supports both an individualist and communitarian mindset. Accounting for all of these strands in a balanced way is a lot to ask of legal institutions, especially inasmuch as the strands often are in competition with one another. Deadwood suggests that, while law is certainly a component piece in the puzzle of human relations, it alone cannot do all that we ask of it. And therein may lie the ultimate lesson: Law can be a blessing, but the human condition requires more.
Here’s to more Indian law and legal history scholars taking a look at the “Deadwood” show. This seems to be a decent paper, but like the show it keeps the Indians in the background.
William Mitchell Law Review Symposium on Indian Law
Pretty excellent collection of articles.
Here:
Lenor A. Scheffler
Foreward
Ann E. Tweedy
Sex Discrimination Under Tribal Law
Keith Richotte, Jr.
Legal Pluralism and Tribal Constitutions
Steven J. Gunn
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act at Twenty: Reaching the Limits of Our National Consensus
Marren Sanders
Clean Water in Indian Country: The Risks (and Rewards) of Being Treated in the Same Manner as a State
Sarah Deer on Sex Trafficking of Native Women
Sarah Deer has published her paper, “Relocation Revisited: Sex Trafficking of Native Women in the United States,” in the William Mitchell Law Review (Sarah Deer Sex Trafficking Article) (SSRN link).
Bruce Johnsen on Historic Indian Conservation of the Pacific Northwest Fishery
Bruce Johnsen has posted an abstract of his interesting article, “Salmon, Science, and Reciprocity on the Northwest Coast,” on SSRN. Full text article here.
The abstract:
Severe depletion of many genetically distinct Pacific salmon populations has spawned a contentious debate over causation and the efficacy of proposed solutions. No doubt the precipitating factor was overharvesting of the commons beginning along the Northwest Coast around 1860. Yet, for millenia before that, a relatively dense population of Indian tribes managed salmon stocks that have since been characterized as “superabundant.” This study investigates how they avoided a tragedy of the commons, where, in recent history, commercial ocean fishers guided by scientifically informed regulators have repeatedly failed. Unlike commercial fishers, the tribes enjoyed exclusive rights to terminal fisheries enforced through rigorous reciprocity relations. The available evidence is compelling that they actively husbanded their salmon stocks for sustained abundance.
Anishinaabemowin and the Interpretation of Michigan Indian Treaties
I just posted a draft of my paper, “‘Occupancy’ and ‘Settlement’: Anishinaabemowin and the Interpretation of Michigan Indian Treaties” on SSRN. Any constructive feedback would be helpful.
Here is the abstract:
The 2007 Consent Decree in United States v. Michigan, a major victory for the tribal interests, recognized that the lands in ownership by the state, federal, and tribal governments – vast swaths of Michigan – would stand in for the lands not yet “required for settlement.” The Michigan Indians’ “privilege” to continued “occupancy” acquired legal determinacy. This short essay examines how Michigan Indian treaty negotiators would have understood the meaning of the words “settlement” and “occupancy,” and how that understanding strongly influenced the land base in which Michigan Indians can continue to exercise their inland treaty rights in accordance with the 1836 Treaty.
Jack Balkin on the Indian Commerce Clause
Jack Balkin’s new paper, “Commerce,” (noted here at Legal Theory Blog and of course here), has very interesting commentary on the Indian Commerce Clause.
In short, Prof. Balkin argues that the word “commerce” in the Constitution means more than mere trade or economic activity, but instead should be read to mean all “interaction.” He discusses the Indian Commerce Clause at length as an example of how the Framers and the original interpreters of the Constitution understood “commerce” to mean much more than mere trade or economic activity. Followers of Indian law may recall that this has significant import to Indian affairs, as the Court in United States v. Kagama asserted that the Indian Commerce Clause could not be a source of Congressional authority to enact the Major Crimes Act, a largely discarded view that Justice Thomas attempted to resurrect in his United States v. Lara concurrence.
Of note on pages 30-31, Balkin cites the 1790 Trade and Intercourse Act as evidence of this broader interpretation and understanding, something many others from Bob Clinton and Akhil Amar have done as well:
One of the first things the new government did, for example, was to regulate its interactions with the Indian tribes, through a series of Trade and Intercourse Acts beginning in 1790. The title of these acts was apt: they not only required licenses for trade with Indians, but also punished “any crime upon, or trespass against, the person or property of any peaceable and friendly Indian or Indians.”78 These crimes did not necessarily involve trade or even economic activity; they could involve assault, murder, or rape. Note as well that even if the point of regulating these crimes was because of their likely effects on trade with the Indian tribes, the activities regulated were themselves not economic. And note finally that the 1790 and 1793 Trade and Intercourse Acts could not be justified as legislation designed to enforce treaties; they applied to crimes against Indians, whether or not they had signed treaties with the United States.79
The last sentence is a crucial point, as some conservative original meaning scholars have suggested that the 1790 Act was broader than trade or economic activity because it was intended to implement treaty language, thereby defeating whatever evidence the 1790 Act represented in the original meaning of the commerce clause. Continue reading

You must be logged in to post a comment.