Jedediah Purdy has published “Property and Empire: The Law of Imperialism in Johnson v. M’Intosh” in the George Washington Law Review.
From the abstract:
Scholarship
Lillian Aponte Miranda on Indigenous Land Rights under International Law
Hon. J. Matthew Martin (Eastern Band Cherokee) on FTCA “Law of the Place”
Judge Martin of the Eastern Band Cherokee tribal court has published “Federal Malpractice in Indian Country and the ‘Law of the Place’: A Re-examination of Williams v. United States Under Existing Law of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians” in the Campbell Law Review.
Blackmun Digital Archive Research — A Concordance of Indian Law Cases (1986-1993)
Justice Blackmun’s papers are starting to appear online. The docket sheets and the cert pool memos of each case in the docket years 1986 through 1993 are now available at this location. However, in order to find anything, you have to know the docket numbers.
I’ve listed all the Indian law cases I could find for those docket years. I used the United States Law Week categorization system, which puts Indian law cert petitions in the “Indians” or (now) “Native Americans” category. It does not do this for unpaid petitions, so my list is non-exhaustive. However, I captured a few important unpaid cert petitions because they were cross-referenced in other cert pool memos.
You can get this concordance at our occasional papers series website. It’s no. 2007-15.
It is a work in progress. Any additional information you have to make the concordance a better document would be much appreciated.
Michigan State Law Review Call for Papers
Dear Colleagues,
The editors of the Michigan State Law Review have asked that I forward to you the following call for papers:
The Michigan State Law Review is requesting submissions for its spring symposium issue on the topic of Labor and Employment Laws in Indian Country, in conjunction with the Section on Indian Nations and Indigenous Peoples program during the American Association of Law Schools’ Annual Meeting in New York City on January 5, 2008. The Law Review is requesting submissions from both the Indian Nations/tribal law perspective, and from employers’ perspectives. We welcome papers on the effects of state and federal labor regulations on tribal employers and employees, as well as papers on other topics relating to the interplay of labor and employment law and Indian Nations. The issue is scheduled to be published in May 2008. We ask that you submit your papers by February 15, 2008. We invite any conference participants or invitees to submit papers, but we welcome papers from those unable to attend the conference as well. Please email your manuscripts or any questions to Emma Haas, Michigan State Law Review Senior Articles Editor, at haasemma@msu.edu. Thank you for your interest.
Miigwetch,
Wenona Singel
Washburn Law Journal Call for Papers
The Washburn Law Journal is currently requesting article submissions for the third issue of volume 47. This issue will be entirely focused on legal issues involving Indigenous Peoples of North America. We leave the topic intentionally broad, so that we might obtain a wide range of articles on legal issues, which include, but are not limited to, Tribal Law, Federal Indian Law and international legal concerns of indigenous populations. If you have academic pieces that you would like us to consider for publication, please send an email with your submission and contact information to Eryn Wright, Articles Editor at eryn.wright@washburn.edu. All submissions received prior to January 4, 2008 will be considered.
Thank you,
Eryn Wright
Articles Editor
Washburn Law Journal, Volume 47
“Factbound and Splitless” Talk
Here’s the abstract for my talk tomorrow at U-M Law School, “Factbound and Splitless: The Impact of the Certiorari Process on Federal Indian Law.”
The process by which the Supreme Court reviews petitions for writs of certiorari is intended to parse through the thousands of petitions to pick out the most important cases for the Court to decide. These include cases in which there is a split of authority, cases in which a lower court has committed a gross error, or cases in which there is a critical constitutional issue at stake. Cases in which there is no split, cases that will affect only a few people, cases involving simple error correction, or cases involving an unimportant issue are unlikely to be heard by the Court.
Since the 1980s, more and more Justices have resorted to a pool of law clerks for a write-up of each cert petition that includes a recommendation of whether or not the Court should grant cert using these factors. With the release of Justice Blackmun’s papers, the cert pool petitions from the docket years 1986 to 1993 are available for study. The views of Supreme Court clerks in the cert pool memos are often the only written documentation of the Court’s views of the vast majority of petitions that are denied.
The certiorari process creates a structural barrier to the fair adjudication of federal Indian law cases. Because over 80 percent of Indian law cases arise in three circuits, few circuit splits arise, rendering most petitions “splitless.” Moreover, since Indian law cases are often sui generis, they are labeled “factbound.” Most importantly, Supreme Court clerks do not find Indian law cases to be important in regards to the legal issues in dispute, except when the petitioner is a state or local government opposing a tribal interest such as a tribe or a tribal member.
What this means is that the clerks almost never recommend a grant when the petitioner is an Indian tribe or an Indian because the petition is “splitless,” “factbound,” or just unimportant. Conversely, when a state or local government petitions, the Court grants the petition around 75 percent of the time, regardless of whether any split exists. Perhaps this is part of the explanation for why tribal interests have lost 75 percent of their cases before the Court since 1987.
The classic case is a treaty rights case brought by a tribe. If the tribe loses below, the clerks will never find a split in authority because the treaty is unique, making the case sui generis. And Supreme Court clerks almost never find the petitions of Indians and Indian tribes to be important enough to be certworthy. But if the tribe wins below, the opponents usually are state governments, whose cert petitions are viewed favorably by the clerks.
This paper argues, as have occasional Supreme Court clerks, that the Court should recognize the special relationship that exists between the United States and Indian tribes in the certiorari process. The Court should also recognize the structural inequity of the certiorari process in the context of federal Indian law. Both of these changes could be accomplished through an amendment to Supreme Court Rule 10, which articulates the Court’s factors in considering certiorari petitions. Either the Court should grant more petitions filed by tribal interests or deny more petitions filed by tribal opponents.
Hope you can make it. The talk begins at 12:20 in Room 150 in the law school. Lunch is available. The talk is sponsored by the U-M NALSA and the Michigan Journal of Race & Law.
Fletcher: On Black Freedmen
My newly revised paper, now titled “On Black Freedmen,” should be up on SSRN in the next few days. The paper will be part of Justice Unveiled: African American Culture and Legal Discourse (Lovalerie King & Richard Schur, eds.).
From the Abstract:
In recent years, some legal, political, and cultural questions involving American Indians have begun to overlap – and conflict – with those of African Americans. The recent Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma’s vote to strip the Black Freedmen of tribal membership generated allegations of racism and calls to force Indian tribes to comply with the Reconstruction Amendments sheds light on this question. This controversy highlights a serious problem in Indian-Black political and social relationships – the discourse of Black-White racism has begun to intrude into the discourse of American Indian law. The Reconstruction Amendments, federal civil rights statutes, and federal case law—all established as a reaction to Black-White racism –– expresses important antidiscrimination principles that can conflict with the foundational elements of American Indian law: tribal sovereignty, the trust relationship, and measured separatism. To import the law of Black-White racism into American Indian law is to destroy American Indian law and, potentially, American Indian culture.
Tales from the Cert Pool: Montana Taxes at Crow
The Supreme Court denied cert in a case captioned Montana v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 484 U.S. 1039 (1988) (No. 87-343). The case involved the State’s attempt to impose severance and gross proceeds on a non-Indian mining company.
The cert pool memo (from a Rehnquist clerk no less) ripped the State’s argument:
[Montana]’s contention that its taxes should not be preempted because they fall on Westmoreland, rather than on the Crow Tribe itself, is ludicrous. The state severance and gross proceeds taxes have restricted the amount of taxation [Crow] can levy on its lessees. The CA9 found that the marketability of [Crow]’s coal was significantly diminished by [Montana]’s taxes, resulting in a corresponding decrease in the amount of money accruing to[Crow]’s coffers.
Cert Pool Memo at 7.
How times have changed. After Cotton Petroleum and Wagnon, states can strategically tax for the specific purpose of limiting on-reservation activities and all but eliminate tribal tax base.
Tales from the Cert Pool: Circuit Splits and Federal Indian Law
Most cases now reach the Supreme Court because of circuit splits or splits in authority between federal courts of appeal and state supreme courts, but federal Indian law is an exception. In my study of the digital archive of Justice Blackmun’s cert pool memos from docket years 1986-1993, perhaps a quarter of cases that attracted the Court’s attention (reaching the so-called “discuss list” at conference) did so because there was a split.
One reason for the lack of circuit splits in federal Indian law is geography — well over 80 percent of cert petitions arise out of the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits (and the states located within those circuits).
Moreover, because the cert petition subject matters are based on treaties or statutes that apply only within a state or a region, there is little likelihood of there ever being a split where the federal circuit and the state supreme court agree. Two examples from my forthcoming paper, “Factbound and Splitless”:
In South Dakota v. Spotted Horse, the Justice Blackmun’s clerk wrote a supplemental memo to the cert pool memo in which she wrote, “As the poolwriter noted, there will never be a split on the question of South Dakota’s jurisdiction over these tribal highways because both CA8 and the S.D. SCt agree that the State is without jurisdiction.” In Tarbell v. United States, a criminal case involving the application of a federal statute that applied to New York Indians, the cert pool memowriter (Mark Snyderman, an O’Connor clerk) noted, “Of course, NY state is probably the only other jurisdiction that would have an opportunity to rule on the issue.”
In one famous instance, the Court granted cert in a case thinking there was a circuit split when there really wasn’t (or more accurately, the split dissolved when the Court decided the case). The cases were Anderson v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue and Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac and Fox Nation. In Anderson, the WI Supreme Court ruled that Indians living off the rez but working on the rez have to pay state income taxes. In Sac and Fox, the CA10 ruled that Indians living on trust land and working for the tribe on trust land don’t have to pay tax. That’s the split, but the split disappeared when the Court decided that trust land is the same as “Indian Country” — making the factual predicate for the split (the residence of the tribal member: one was off, one was on) disappear.
I go into greater depth in the paper, but the story basically is this. The OTC’s petition in Sac and Fox reached the Court first, but neglected to mention the Wisconsin case. The Wisconsin case reached the cert pool next, alleging the split in authority. The cert pool writer thought the Sac and Fox case was factually messier (because of the trust land question) so recommended the Court grant cert in Anderson. Also, the cert pool memowriter argued that the OTC was a bad litigant for not noting the split in the first place, so recommended that the Court go for the Wisconsin case instead. But Anderson filed indigent, and he shouldn’t have, so the Court had to order him to comply with SCT rules before his appeal would proceed. In the meantime, the Court decided to hear Sac and Fox instead. The Anderson pool memo is here and the Sac and Fox memo is here.
And it’s good thing too. Bill Rice’s mastery of oral argument before the Supreme Court can be heard here (with a little help from Edwin Kneedler).
Had the Court decided Anderson instead, it seems clear to me that it would have ruled against Anderson, who was living off the rez and refusing to pay state income taxes. Who know what would have happened to Sac and Fox Nation?
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.