Breanna Bollig on Indian Education Rights

Breanna K. Bollig has published “Improving Public Schools: What Advocates Can Learn From Indian Education Rights” in the Journal of Law and Education.

An except:

Unbeknownst to most education advocates, though, is that Indian education rights provide critical lessons on how to improve schools and the right to education. Just as tribal nations—as separate sovereigns that are capable of enacting their own laws—are considered “laboratories of legal innovation,” there is massive potential for studying Indian education rights. With its successes and failures, education advocates can look to Indian education rights to better develop a strategy to improve public schools. In fact, education advocates could have much needed guidance in asking vital questions surrounding inadequate and inequitable public schools. For example, how should the states and the federal government share the responsibility of education in the United States? How should a federal right to education be created? How can we better hold inadequate and inequitable schools accountable? What other strategies can we use to improve inadequate and inequitable schools?

FNDI Justice Essay by Fletcher: “Justice, the Colonizer, and the Michigan Anishinaabek”

First Nations Development Institute (First Nations) is pleased to launch a new online series of essays that focuses on Native justice. With generous support from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), First Nations invited multiple experts to discuss the root causes of Native injustice and highlight possible frameworks to move forward toward Native justice. 

This essay by Matthew L.M. Fletcher, an appellate tribal judge and law professor at Michigan Law, University of Michigan, discusses traditional and contemporary perspectives on justice among his own tribal nation. In this essay, Professor Fletcher explores how the Michigan Anishinaabek have adapted and modified the American court system to reflect the Anishinaabe philosophy of Mino-Bimaadiziwin, which encourages Anishinaabe people to acknowledge and take responsibility for “their actions and inactions on the surrounding world.” He reasons that this tribally specific approach empowers the Anishinaabe court to better serve their own people and communities.

Here.

2023-2024 American Indian Law Review National Writing Competition


Announcing the 2023-2024 American Indian Law Review National Writing Competition

This year’s American Indian Law Review national writing competition is now welcoming papers from students at accredited law schools in the United States and Canada.  Papers will be accepted on any legal issue specifically concerning American Indians or other indigenous peoples.  Three cash prizes will be awarded: $1,500 for first place, $750 for second place, and $400 for third place.  Each of the three winning authors will also be awarded an eBook copy of Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, provided by LexisNexis.

The deadline for entries is Thursday, February 29, 2024, at 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Sponsored by the University of Oklahoma College of Law, the American Indian Law Review has proudly served Native and legal communities since 1973.  Each year at this time we encourage law students nationwide to participate in this, the longest-running competition of its kind.  Papers will be judged by a panel of Indian law scholars and by the editors of the Review.

For further information on eligibility, entry requirements, and judging crit

Tanner Allread on SCOTUS’ Improper Use of Indian Removal Era Analysis in Modern Day Indian Law Cases

W. Tanner Allread has published “The Specter of Indian Removal: The Persistence of State Supremacy Arguments in Federal Indian Law” in the Columbia Law Review. PDF

Abstract:

In the 2022 case of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, the Supreme Court departed from one of the foundational cases in federal Indian law, Worcester v. Georgia. Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 opinion had dismissed state power over Indian Country. But in Castro-Huerta, the Court took precisely the kind of arguments about state power that Chief Justice Marshall rejected in Worcester and turned them into the law of the land—without any recognition of the arguments’ Indian Removal–era origins.

This Article corrects the Court’s oversight. Relying on rarely utilized archival sources, it provides a historical narrative of the development of what the Article terms the theory of state supremacy, first articulated by the southern state legislatures in the Removal Era to justify state power over Native nations and eradicate Native sovereignty. Even though Worcester rejected this theory, Supreme Court Justices and state litigants have continued to invoke its tenets in Indian law cases from the late nineteenth century to the present. Castro-Huerta, then, is just the latest and most egregious example. And the decision’s use of Removal-era arguments revives the specter of Indian Removal in the present day.

This Article reveals that the continued use of state supremacy arguments defies constitutional law and federal Indian affairs policy, produces an inaccurate history of Native nations and federal Indian law, and perpetuates the racism and violence that characterized the Removal Era. Ultimately, this Article seeks to counter future attacks on tribal sovereignty and combat the broader revival of long-rejected federalism arguments.

New Student Scholarship on Trust Land Acquisitions for Alaska Tribal Nations

Alexis Studler has posted “Reviving Indian Country: Expanding Alaska Native Villages’ Tribal Land Bases Through Fee-to-Trust Acquisitions,” forthcoming in the Michigan Journal of Race & Law, on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

For the last fifty years, the possibility of fee-to-trust acquisitions in Alaska has been precarious at best. This is largely due to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA), which eschewed the traditional reservation system in favor of corporate land ownership and management. Despite its silence on trust acquisitions, ANCSA was and still is cited as the primary prohibition to trust acquisitions in Alaska. Essentially, ANCSA both reduced Indian Country in Alaska and prohibited any opportunities to create it, leaving Alaska Native Villages without the significant territorial jurisdiction afforded to Lower 48 tribes. However, recent policy changes from the Department of Interior reaffirmed the eligibility of trust acquisitions post-ANCSA and a proposed rule from the Bureau of Indian Affairs signals a favorable presumption of approval for Alaska Native fee-to-trust applications. This Note reviews the history and controversy of trust acquisitions in Alaska, and more importantly, it demonstrates the methods in which Alaska Native Villages may still acquire fee land for trust acquisitions after ANCSA.

New Student Scholarship on Circuit Split in Applicability of Federal Employment Laws to Tribes

Logan C. Hibbs has published “Not So Clear and Plain: Exploring the Circuit Split on the Applicability of Federal Labor & Employment Laws to Tribes” in the Oklahoma Law Review.

Not intended to critique the paper at all.

New Student Scholarship on Ecocide as Prosecutable Genocide

Abbey Koenning-Rutherford has published “Dishonoring the Earth: Ecocide as Prosecutable Genocide Against Indigenous People” in the Georgetown Law Journal. PDF

Here is the abstract:

Global Indigenous people exist as one with the environment, with no western binary between people and nature. Destruction of Indigenous people is reciprocal with environmental destruction. Indigenous people, though only six percent of the global population, protect eighty percent of the world’s biodiversity and occupy exceedingly environmentally vulnerable regions. Because of these reasons, the International Criminal Court (the “ICC”) could be utilized to achieve justice by prosecuting ecocide as genocide, should impacted Indigenous peoples choose to utilize it

Recent Indian Law Scholarship

Tribes, States, and Sovereigns’ Interest in Children

North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 102, 2024

Emily Stolzenberg, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law


Navajo Statehood: From Domestic Dependent Nation to 51st State

101 Oregon Law Review 307 (2023)

Ezra Rosser, American University – Washington College of Law


Re-Placing Property

University of Chicago Law Review, Forthcoming

Jessica A. Shoemaker, University of Nebraska – College of Law


The Federal Indian Blood Quantum Fiction

The Great Vanishing Act: Blood Quantum and the Future of Native Nations, Vol. 2, Fulcrum Publishing, (Forthcoming)

Gabriel Galanda, Galanda Broadman


Enslaved in a Free Country: Legalized Exploitation of Native Americans and African Americans in Early California and the Post-Emancipation South

Journal of Law and Political Economy, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2022

Middleton Manning, Beth Rose, Steven Gayle


Affordable and Clean Energy

Chapter 7 in Governing for Sustainability, Environmental Law Institute (2023); University of Utah College of Law Research Paper Forthcoming

Elizabeth Ann Kronk Warner, Uma Outka, University of Utah – S.J. Quinney College of Law and University of Kansas – School of Law


Property and More-than-Human Personhood

U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2023-34

Jessie Allen, University of Pittsburgh – School of Law


True Co-management: Critical Approaches to Indigenous Food Sovereignty

41 Yale Law & Policy Review 233 (2023)

Alexandra Fay, UCLA School of Law

Mayberry and Garrow on Fairness for Self-Represented Tribal Court Litigants

Danielle J. Mayberry and Carrie E. Garrow have published “A Portrait of Tribal Courts: Tribal Court Tools and Levers to Ensure Procedural Fairness for Self-Represented Litigants” in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process. PDF

Highly recommended!

Vanessa Racehorse and Anna Hohag on Climate Justice and LandBack

Vanessa Racehorse and Anna Hohag have posted “Achieving Climate Justice Through Land Back: An Overview of Tribal Dispossession, Land Return Efforts, and Practical Mechanisms for #LandBack,” published in the Colorado Environmental Law Journal.

Here is the abstract:

Due to the increasing pressures of the climate change crisis, federal and state governments are beginning to acknowledge that Indigenous-led stewardship and control over Tribal aboriginal homelands is a crucial component of addressing climate change. In the United States, Tribal nations have a long history of responsible land stewardship, with environmental conservation and respect for the world’s biodiversity being an inextricable piece of Tribal customs, traditions, and knowledge. This Article strives to pay due respect to traditional land stewardship and its important role in the past, present, and future.

Part I of this Article starts with an overview of the history of forcible dispossession of Native American land, and provides initial thoughts on the myriad of meanings that the expression “Land Back” can hold. The United States has a long history of forcibly removing Native American Tribes from their ancestral homelands and relocating them to smaller plots of land, with some estimates indicating Tribal nations ultimately lost 98.9 percent of their aboriginal homelands post-contact. Part II will discuss how this change in land tenure and land use can be linked to climate change, with Indigenous communities often at the frontline of climate change events. Additionally, areas predominantly occupied by Indigenous peoples are frequently more prone to experience extreme weather conditions, such as extreme heat, drought, greater wildfire risks, and extreme flooding, the latter of which has caused the relocation of some coastal Indigenous communities.

Although modern Indian land use is manifold, traditional Indigenous stewardship is rooted in careful management of the ecosystem. Indigenous peoples across the globe remain the stewards and protectors of most of the world’s biodiversity, while standing at the forefront of the opposition to extractive industries. According to a report conducted by the Indigenous Environmental Network, Indigenous-led movements in resistance to oil and gas projects have stopped or delayed greenhouse gas emission equal to nearly one-quarter of the annual total U.S and Canadian emissions. The leadership demonstrated by Indigenous peoples to combat the climate crisis is indicative of the cultural value system that justifies land restitution.

Parts III, IV, and V of this Article explore the efforts being made on the federal, state, and Tribal level to return land to its original caretakers and discusses practical ways that Tribal governments and organizations are achieving Land Back through mutual goals of conservation and repatriation. While the preferred method used by the federal and state governments and their respective agencies has been to extend opportunities for Tribal co-management, this is not enough to curb the urgency of the impending climate disaster, the effects of which have been, and will continue to be, felt first and foremost by Indigenous peoples. It is time for Land Back. There is no clearer argument for Land Back than to prevent irreparable harm to the planet—a cause that is unquestionably in the greatest good for all people.

a cubist painting of native american painting