Scholarship

Amber Halldin on Tribal Civil Responses to Non-Indian Violence Against Women

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Amber Halldin (my former student at UND!) has published “Restoring the Victim and the Community: A Look at the Tribal Response to Sexual Violence Committed by Non-Indians in Indian Country through Non-Criminal Approaches” in the North Dakota Law Review. An excerpt:

This article will examine how tribes respond to non-Indians that commit sexual violence against Native people in Indian country. Jurisdictional issues create particular problems for tribes to remedy the violence committed in their communities, because tribes are often forced to rely on non-criminal prosecution remedies. Through the use of traditional tribal punishments and newly developed tactics, Indian tribes are working towards better protecting their members despite federal law barriers.

Fletcher on “Laughing Whitefish” and Tribal Customary Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Matthew Fletcher posted “Laughing Whitefish: A Tale of Justice and Anishinaabe Custom” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Laughing Whitefish, a novel by Robert Traver, the pen name of former Michigan Supreme Court Justice John Voelker, is the fictionalized story of a case that reached the Michigan Supreme Court three times, culminating in Kobogum v. Jackson Iron Co., 43 N.W. 602 (Mich. 1889). The petitioner, Charlotte Kobogum, an Ojibwe Indian from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, brought suit to recover under a note issued to her father, Marji Gesick, by the mining company in the 1840s. The company had promised a share in the company because he had led them to one of the largest iron ore deposits in the country, the famed Jackson Mine. Despite the company’s defense that Mr. Gesick was a polygamist and therefore Ms. Kobogum could not be his legitimate heir, the Michigan Supreme Court held that state courts had no right to interfere with internal, domestic relations of reservation Indians, and upheld the claim. Justice Voelker’s tale is a powerful defense of the decision, and offers insights into why state courts should recognize the judgments of tribal courts even today.

book cover of Laughing Whitefish by Robert Traver

Bethany Berger on Racism

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Bethany Berger has posted her paper “Red: Racism and American Indians” on SSRN. It is forthcoming in the UCLA Law Review. Here is the abstract:

How does racism work in American Indian law and policy? Scholarship on the subject has too often assumed that racism works for Indians in the same way that it does for African Americans, and has therefore either emphasized the presence of hallmarks of White-Black racism, such as uses of blood quantum, as evidence of racism, or has emphasized the lack of such hallmarks, such as prohibitions on interracial marriage, to argue that racism is not a significant factor. This Article surveys the different eras of Indian-White interaction to argue that racism has been important in those interactions, but has worked in a distinctive way. North Americans were not primarily concerned with using Indian people as a source of labor, and therefore did not have to theorize Indians as inferior individuals to control that labor. Rather, the primary concern was to obtain tribal resources and use tribes as a flattering foil for American governments. Therefore it was necessary to theorize tribal societies as fatally and racially inferior, while emphasizing the ability of Indian individuals to leave their societies and join non-Indian ones. This theory addresses the odd paradox that the most unquestionably racist eras in Indian-White interaction emphasized and encouraged assimilation of Indian individuals. It contributes to the ongoing effort to understand the varying manifestations of racism in a multi-racial America. Most important, it provides a new perspective on efforts to curtail tribal sovereignty in the name of racial equality, revealing their connection to historic efforts to maintain the inferiority of Indian tribes by treating them as racial groups rather than political entities with governmental rights.

Paul Spruhan on the Canadian Indian Free Passage Right

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Paul Spruhan, a law clerk for the Navajo Nation Supreme Court, has posed “The Canadian Indian Free Passage Right: The Last Stronghold of Explicit Race Restriction in United States Immigration Law,” forthcoming in the North Dakota Law Review. Here is the abstract:

The paper discusses the little-known provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows Canadian Indians to cross the United States-Canada border free of visa and other immigration requirements. Noting that the provision restricts the right to persons of 50% or more “blood of the American Indian race,” the paper traces its origin in a 1928 statute that did not include the blood quantum requirement, the interpretation of the term “Indian” as used in the 1928 statute by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the reasons for the 1952 amendment that added blood quantum. The paper then discusses the constitutionality of the provision in light of the current approach of the United States Supreme Court to racial provisions in federal Indian law and immigration law.

2009 Speaker Series

Kate Fort

We’ve added our 2009 Speaker Series page to the blog.  Speakers this year include Justin Richland, Stuart Banner and Robert Dale Parker.  Click here for more information abou the speakers, their books and the tentative dates of the events.

Ann Tweedy on the Constitution, the Marshall Trilogy, and U.S. v. Lara

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ann Tweedy has posted “Connecting the Dots Between the Constitution, the Marshall Trilogy, and United States v. Lara: Notes Toward a Blueprint for the Next Legislative Restoration of Tribal Sovereignty” on SSRN. This paper is forthcoming in one my favorite journals, the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. Here is the abstract:

This law review article examines: (1) the underpinnings of tribal sovereignty within the American system; (2) the need for restoration based on the Court’s drastic incursions on tribal sovereignty over the past four decades and the grave circumstances, particularly tribal governments’ inability to protect tribal interests on the reservation and unchecked violence in Indian Country, that result from the divestment of tribal sovereignty; (3) the concept of restoration as illuminated by United States v. Lara, and finally (4) some possible approaches to partial restoration.

The article first evaluates the constitutional provisions relating to Indians and the earliest federal Indian law decisions written by Chief Justice Marshall on the premise that these two sources shed light on the upper limits of a potential legislative restoration of tribal sovereignty. Next, the article examines the judicial trend of divestment of tribal sovereignty, focusing particularly on the latest decisions that evidence this trend. The article further examines the negative effects of this divestment in Indian Country, from impeding tribes’ ability to provide governmental services and to protect their unique institutions, to problems of widespread on-reservation violence, particularly against Indian women. The article concludes that the judicial trend of divesting tribal sovereignty combined with these dire effects clearly demonstrate a need for restoration. Finally, the article examines the Lara holding and its implications for the types of restoration that will be upheld by Court, concluding with an examination of options for potential legislative restorations.

This looks like a very interesting paper, and may be the first paper that digests the recent scholarship on the scope of the Indian Commerce Clause from Pommersheim, Natelson, and others.

Law Journal Symposium on Climate Change and the Polar Regions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Sustainable Development and Policy, a law journal published at American University’s law school, has published an entire symposium issue on climate change and the polar regions (here).

At least two of the articles involve discussion of Indigenous peoples:

Ford, Supporting Adaptation: A Priority for Action on Climate Change for Canadian Inuit (p. 25)

Kazarian, The Forgotten North: Peoples and Lands in Peril (p. 46)

Patrick Macklem on Minority Rights in International Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Patrick Macklem has posted “Minority Rights in International Law” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Why should international human rights law vest members of a minority community – either individually or collectively – with rights that secure a measure of autonomy from the state in which they are located? To the extent that the field offers answers to this question, it does so from its deep commitment to the protection of certain universal attributes of human identity from the exercise of sovereign power. It protects minority rights on the assumption that religious, cultural and linguistic affiliations are essential features of what it means to be human. There exists an alternative account of why minority rights possess international significance, one that trades less on the currency of religion, culture and language and more on the value of international distributive justice. On this account, international minority rights speak to wrongs that that international law itself produces by organizing international political reality into a legal order. This account avoids the normative instabilities of attaching universal value to religious, cultural and linguistic affiliation and instead challenges the international legal order to remedy pathologies of its own making.

Benjamin Richardson on Indigenous Peoples and Environmental Governance

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Benjamin Richardson has posted “Ties That Bind: Indigenous Peoples on Environmental Governance” on SSRN. This paper is forthcoming in the book, “Indigenous Peoples and the Law: Comparative and Critical Perspectives.” Here is the abstract:

Canvassing practices in many countries, this chapter analyses the relationships between Indigenous peoples and environmental governance. It examines the environmental values and practices of Indigenous peoples, primarily in order to assess their implications for the Indigenous stake in environmental governance. It identifies at least six major theories or perspectives concerning Indigenous environmental values and practices. Secondly, the chapter reviews the legal norms and governance tools that structure Indigenous involvement in environmental management, in order to assess their relative value for Indigenous stakeholders and implications for sustainable utilisation of natural resources.

“American Indian Education” Profiled by ICT

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From ICT:

TEMPE, Ariz. – Matthew L.M. Fletcher is an associate professor at Michigan State University College of Law and he is the director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center. He recently published, ”American Indian Education: Counternarrative in Racism, Struggle, and the Law” through Routledge. He graduated from University of Michigan Law School.

Indian Country Today: Why did you choose to pursue a career in law?

Matthew L.M. Fletcher: I just want to be able to contribute something to the community and I also was thinking in different ways, even before I started college, what I could do. I had talks with people who are from my community and elders from Michigan who talked a lot about how in the ’70s and ’80s, the big treaty fishing cases were going on and people were really happy with the outcomes with those cases but they were sad to see all the litigation conducted and organized and control by people that were not from the community.

ICT: Do you feel like you have helped your tribe?

Fletcher: I feel like I’ve contributed something and I continue to contribute something. My whole life will be a process of contributing. I think it has been real good.

ICT: What is the future of Indian law?

Fletcher: It’s interesting. The ’70s and ’80s were about litigating treaty rights. The key for Indian lawyers is not so much about going to court but it’s about developing governmental structures within the tribe which is what lawyers do. It’s actually a folly to go to federal courts now. All you have to do is ask anyone who does any kind of litigation in federal court if you’re representing a tribe or tribal interest you can’t expect to win. It’s going to be that way for a long time. The thing that you see is institution building within Indian country. There are some incredible things going on that are not getting a lot of attention. There is a lot of creativity with people bringing back indigenous culture and tradition.

ICT: How would you define sovereignty?

Fletcher: My view of sovereignty is that it is the right to make your own mistakes and to decide things for yourselves. That is really what it is about. Tribes have the wherewithal, the ability and the legal authority to pursue different avenues of governance. They are going to do something where everyone shakes their heads, and then they are going to do other things where people are going to just say, ”Wow.” There is an incredible amount of diversity and creativity going on right now.

Continue reading →