Scholarship

Jackie Hand on Climate Change Threat to American Indians

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Jacqueline Hand has published “Global Climate Change: A Serious Threat to Native American Lands and Culture” in the Environmental Law Reporter. Here is the abstract:

During the past decade, public perception of global climate change has transformed from a gloom and doom scenario not to be taken seriously to a nearly universally recognized peril to the planet. Native Americans, especially those in the Arctic region, experience changes in climate with greater immediacy than the general population, and this disproportionate result is expected to become more severe as the effects of climate change escalate. This Article will explore the nature of the impact of climate change on Native Americans, the importance of including traditional tribal knowledge and expertise in understanding the crisis and developing adaptive mechanisms, and the responses by individual tribes as well as by indigenous people as a whole.

Ronald Krotoszynski on Employment Division v. Smith II

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ronald Krotoszynski has published “If Judges Were Angels: Religious Equality, Free Exercise, and the (Underappreciated) Merits of Smith” in the Northwestern University Law Review. Here is an excerpt from the introduction:

Thus, the standard approach is to link the importance of religious autonomy with a strict form of judicial scrutiny for governmental actions that have the incidental effect of denying religionists, including but not limited to members of minority religions, the ability to engage in religiously motivated conduct. Viewed from this vantage point, Smith is highly objectionable because it makes successful free exercise challenges to general laws virtually impossible to win. Even if the federal courts have not applied strict scrutiny in an exacting fashion, lowering the standard of review to mere rationality virtually ensures that most free exercise claims will fail. Thus, the Justices who support strict scrutiny of neutral laws of general applicability that burden religiously motivated practices, such as Justice Brennan and Justice O’Connor, object strenuously to Smith’s change in the governing standard of review from earlier cases, such as Sherbert and Wisconsin v. Yoder, the latter a case that upheld a free exercise claim brought by Amish parents who wished to remove their children from the public schools after the eighth grade. If the Free Exercise Clause exists to facilitate absolute religious autonomy, the Sherbert approach advocated by Justices Brennan and O’Connor would better honor free exercise values. At the very least, it certainly seems reasonable to frame the Free Exercise Clause in terms of religious autonomy.

Rather than as advancing religious liberty or autonomy values, one could alternatively conceive of the Free Exercise Clause as primarily promoting religious equality. If equality among sects is the primary purpose of the Free Exercise Clause, the Smith test (or something like it) might offer a better reading of the Clause than Sherbert and Yoder.

Bob Anderson on Treaty Substitutes in the Modern Era

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Bob Anderson has posted “Treaty Substitutes in the Modern Era” on SSRN. This paper is a book chapter in the forthcoming book “The Power of Promises: Rethinking Indian Treaties in the Pacific Northwest,” edited by Alexandra Harmon.

Here is the abstract:

This chapter compares two modern Indian property settlements processes – the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Snake River Basin Water Rights Settlement – with the mode of agreements in the Pacific Northwest in the mid-19th Century.

Bob Miller on Intertribal and International Treaties for Economic Development

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Bob Miller has posted “Inter-Tribal and International Treaties for American Indian Economic Development,” forthcoming in the Lewis & Clark Law Review. Here is the abstract:

American Indian Tribes and Indigenous peoples around the world are among the poorest groups in their countries. Economic development is an absolutely crucial issue for these governments and their people. Recently, two different efforts have been undertaken to create beneficial development based on treaties between Indigenous groups.

In August 2007, eleven American Indian Nations, Canadian First Nations, New Zealand Maori Iwis, and Australian Aborigine groups signed a treaty to engage in international economic activities. Dozens of other American Tribes and New Zealand Iwis have also signed this treaty or will do so in the next few months. In addition, Pacific Northwest Indian Tribes have drafted an inter-tribal treaty to facilitate the conduct of business on reservations.

This Article dissects these two treaties and addresses some of the unique legal issues that these treaties raise.

Lincoln Davies on Federal Trust, Tribal Sovereignty, and Environmental Policy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Lincoln Davies has posted “Skull Valley Crossroads: Reconciling Native Sovereignty and the Federal Trust,” forthcoming in the Maryland Law Review. Here is the abstract:

It has been long-recognized that a deep tension pervades federal American Indian law. The foundational principles of the field – on the one hand, the notion that tribes keep their inherent right of sovereignty and, on the other, that the federal government has a power and duty to protect them – clash on their face. Despite years of criticism of this conflict, the two principles continue to coexist, albeit uncomfortably. Using the example of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians’ controversial proposal to store high-level nuclear waste on their land, this Article revisits the tension in these doctrines, weighs prior proposals attempting to reconcile them, and concludes that, ultimately, sovereignty and the federal trust are not reconcilable. Finding sovereignty superior -morally, historically, and politically – the Article thus offers a new model for promoting native sovereignty: allowing tribes to be treated similarly to states.

Alex Skibine on Formalism and Judicial Supremacy in Federal Indian Common Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Alex Skibine has posted “Formalism and Judicial Supremacy in Federal Indian Common Law,” forthcoming in the American Indian Law Review. Here is the abstract:

In this article, Professor Skibine shows how in the last thirty years or so, the United States Supreme court has taken legal principles based on functionalism and transformed them into inflexible rules based on formalism. This has allowed the Court not only to rule against Indian tribal interests in 80% of its cases but also to achieve judicial supremacy in the field of Federal Indian law.

Davis and Washburn on Sex Offender Registration in Indian Country

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Virginia Davis (NCAI) and Kevin Washburn (Arizona) have posted “Sex Offender Registration in Indian Country,” forthcoming in the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. Here is the abstract:

Congress was first confronted with the issue of sex offender registration following an incident at a BIA Indian school on the Hopi reservation after a BIA school teacher was convicted of molesting 142 Indian boys during a six-year period in the 1980s. The case, which resulted in a criminal conviction and a $50 million civil settlement, left a scar on the national consciousness. Despite this history, Congress all but ignored the needs of Indian victims and Indian tribes when it enacted the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act as part of the Adam Walsh Act, mandating sex offender registration nationally. This essay criticizes this legislation and the undeliberative and unconsultative process that produced it. It concludes that the legislation might have been far more effective in dealing with sex crimes victimization on Indian reservations if Congress had embraced tribes as equal partners with states in implementing the law’s provisions. In the end, the law is likely to help least the very people who suffer from sex crimes the most. This tragedy could have been averted with a more thoughtful approach and greater recognition of the nuances of jurisdiction and insititutional capacity in Indian country.

“In Defense of Property” from Kristen Carpenter, Sonia Katyal & Angela Riley

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kristen Carpenter, Sonia Katyal, and Angela Riley have posted “In Defense of Property” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This Article advances a comprehensive theory to explain and defend the emergence of indigenous cultural property claims. In doing so, it offers a vigorous response to an emerging view, in scholarship and popular society, that it is normatively undesirable to employ property law as a means of protecting indigenous culture and ideas. In our view, cultural property critiques arise largely because of the absence of a comprehensive and countervailing theory of indigenous cultural property. To remedy this absence, this Article articulates a robust theory of indigenous property that challenges the individual rights paradigm animating current property law. Specifically, this piece makes two broad contributions to existing property theory. First, it draws on but departs significantly from Margaret Jane Radin’s groundbreaking work linking property and ‘personhood,’ and defends cultural property claims, in contrast, within a paradigm of ‘peoplehood.’ Second, this piece posits that, whereas individual rights are overwhelmingly advanced by property law’s dominant ownership model, the interests of peoples, particularly indigenous peoples, are more appropriately and powerfully effectuated through a theory of property characterized most aptly by stewardship.

As this Article demonstrates, our stewardship paradigm suggests a theory of property that goes far beyond the cultural property context, with implications for property law generally. By introducing a fundamental paradigm shift that locates the metaphorical bundle of rights within non-owners as well as owners, we highlight non-owners’ duties and rights to tangible and intangible goods, even in the absence of title or possession. This Article draws on a wealth of literature from the corporate, environmental, and indigenous contexts to introduce an innovative framework for rethinking ownership altogether. Ultimately, our stewardship theory of property makes a significant contribution to the field, filling an existing void in property theory and adding a much-needed perspective to the ongoing debate over cultural property protections.

Carrie Garrow on Haudenosaunee Land Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Carrie Garrow has published “Following Deskaheh’s Legacy: Reclaiming the Cayuga Indian Nation’s Land Rights at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights” in the Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce. Here is the intro:

Deskaheh, Chief of the Younger Bear Clan of the Cayuga Nation in the 1920s, prepared the path for international recognition of Haudenosaunee (People of the Longhouse) sovereignty and human rights. An eloquent orator and resolute leader, he spent many years advocating for international recognition of Haudenosaunee sovereignty and treaty violations by Canada. In 1921, as Speaker of the Six Nations Council, he traveled on a passport issued by his nation to seek British aid to halt Canada’s attempt to overthrow the traditional form of government and impose an elected band council. Despite failing to convince the British to intervene and protect the treaty they had signed with the Six Nations living in Grand River, Deskaheh returned to Europe in 1923. He traveled to Geneva to “bring his peoples’ case before the League of Nations.” While he fought to receive permission to appear before the League, the Canadian government, in violation of Haudenosaunee sovereignty and treaties, announced a “free election” under armed guard of twenty Canadian police at Grand River to determine whether or not the Six Nations Government of Grand River Land should be dissolved. Meanwhile back in Geneva, Deskaheh was denied permission to appear before the League’s plenary session, despite the Netherlands and Albania’s support of his petition. Determined to educate the world about the violation of his people’s rights, Deskaheh presented his nation’s case at a press conference attended by many nations and “[w]hen he finished, there was a moment of silence–then the roar of a tremendous ovation. Thousands rose to their feet to cheer him and the great hall echoed and re-echoed with their applause.” At the end of 1924, Deskaheh returned to the United States, an exile from Canada unable to cross the border. Although Deskaheh thought himself a failure, “he found that the people for whom he had fought did not think him a failure. From their northern homes in Grand River Land, they journeyed here to see him and assure him of their loyalty.”

Continue reading →

Kate Fort on The New Laches

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kate Fort of MSU College of Law has posted “The New Laches” on SSRN. This is the first comprehensive and historical study of the application of laches doctrine to sovereigns, federal, state, and tribal. Here is the abstract:

Tribal land claims are facing a new challenge from an old area of law. Courts have been paying special attention to the law of equity and how it can defeat tribal land claims. Specifically, the equitable defenses of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility were used by the Supreme Court to hand defeat to the Oneida Indian Nation on a tax issue. Since then, lower courts in the Second Circuit have used this precedent to deny Indian land claims. But are these three defenses based on precedent themselves? Rarely. Instead, they have been combined to create a new defense, what I will call the “new laches.” This new defense, so far used successfully in Indian land cases in New York state and unsuccessfully elsewhere, has been so broadly construed by the Second Circuit that, if this view is adopted nationwide, it could apply to any treaty-based claim brought by Indians or Indian tribes.