Fletcher and Singel’s paper, “Lawyering the Indian Child Welfare Act,” has been published in the Michigan Law Review. We’re honored to be part of a symposium on civil rights lawyering!
Our abstract:
This Article describes how the statutory structure of child welfare laws enables lawyers and courts to exploit deep-seated stereotypes about American Indian people rooted in systemic racism to undermine the enforcement of the rights of Indian families and tribes. Even when Indian custodians and tribes are able to protect their rights in court, their adversaries use those same advantages on appeal to attack the constitutional validity of the law. The primary goal of this Article is to help expose those structural issues and the ethically troublesome practices of adoption attorneys as the most important Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) case in history, Brackeen v. Haaland, reaches the Supreme Court.
Universities and law schools have begun to purge the symbols of conquest and slavery from their crests and campuses, but they have yet to come to terms with their role in reproducing the material and ideological conditions of settler colonialism and racial capitalism. This Article considers the role the property law tradition has played in shaping and legitimizing regimes of racialized dispossession past and present. It intervenes in the traditional presentation of property law by arguing that dis-possession describes an ongoing but disavowed function of property law. As a counter-narrative and critique of property, dispossession is a useful concept for challenging existing property arrangements, often rationalized within liberal and legal discourse.
Interesting. Looks to be expanding on K-Sue Park’s work.
New settlement trust provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 have significant implications for Alaska Native Corporation business longevity and the appropriateness of an operating business model given ANC goals as stated in their missions. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act authorized the creation of for-profit corporations for the benefit of Alaska Native shareholders. But for Alaska Natives, cultural continuation was and continues to be a desired goal. Considering the typical life span of U.S. corporations and the inevitability of eventual failure, the for-profit corporate model is inconsistent with aspects of the ANC mission. Settlement trust amendments to ANCSA facilitate ANC cultural continuation goals solving the problem of business viability risk. We make a normative case that ANCs should consider increasing endowment business activity. We also discuss the Alaska Permanent Fund and lessons that those structuring settlement trusts might learn from literature on sovereign wealth funds and endowments.
Kekek Jason Stark, Autumn L. Bernhardt, Monte Mills, and Jason A. Robison have published “Re-Indigenizing Yellowstone” in the Wyoming Law Review. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
When interpreting statutes enacted for the benefit or regulation of Indians or construing treaties signed with Indian nations, courts are supposed to apply any of five specific canons of construction relating to Indian Affairs. Through examining the modern line of Supreme Court cases involving statutory or treaty interpretation relating to Indian nations, this Article demonstrates that the Court has generally been faithful in applying canons relating to treaty interpretation or abrogation. The Court has also respected the canon requiring unequivocal expression of congressional intent before finding an abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity. However, there are two other canons that the Court almost never applies. One, the tribal sovereignty canon, requires clear intent to interfere with tribal sovereign rights; the other, the Indian ambiguity canon, requires statutes to be construed liberally with ambiguities resolved to the benefit of Indians. After reviewing the possible reasons why textualist jurists might be opposed to the use of substantive canons, this Article makes two arguments to remedy any reluctance to using the tribal sovereignty and Indian ambiguity canons. First, these canons have constitutional roots, and as such, even textualists on the Court should not be reluctant to use them. Second, the more established canon concerning abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity should also extend to statutes interfering with tribal sovereign rights. There are no normative reasons to treat abrogation of sovereign immunity differently than other statutory interference with tribal sovereignty.
A direct response to the needs and ambitions articulated by tribal administrators and leaders, this handbook seeks to serve practitioners, students, researchers, and community members alike. It grew out of an ongoing collaboration among scholars and practitioners from tribal nations, universities, tribal colleges, and nonprofit organizations who are developing practical and teaching resources in the field of tribal administration and governance. Designed as a readable, accessible volume, it focuses on three key areas: tribal management, funding and delivering core services, and sovereign tribes engaging settler governments. While the chapters complement one another by presenting a coherent and unified constellation of voices that illuminates a shared terrain of practical Indigenous governance, each chapter ultimately stands alone to accommodate a variety of needs and interests with specific best practices, quick-reference executive summaries, and practitioner notes to aid lesson applications. This humble collection of remarkable voices initiates a conversation about tribal administration that will hopefully continue to grow in service to Native nations.
Multiple nations within the Wabanaki Confederacy, including the Maliseet Nation, Mi’kmaq Nation, Passamaquoddy Tribe, and Penobscot Nation, were signatories to the July 19, 1776 Treaty of Watertown, which was the first ever treaty entered into by the United States of America following the Declaration of Independence. Following the Treaty of Watertown, Wabanaki warriors served directly under General George Washington and made critical contributions in support of the Americans’ Revolutionary War. Such contributions were made based on the Americans’ promise that the Wabanaki Nations’ lands, natural resources, and traditional ways of life would be forever protected by the fledgling United States. Unfortunately for the Wabanaki Nations, their Revolutionary War-era promises were largely disregarded as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and then the State of Maine systematically oppressed their indigenous inhabitants by ignoring an emerging body of federal law, based on the Doctrine of Discovery, which was intended to protect those very indigenous people. This Article delves into this complex history by exploring the Doctrine of Discovery, historical dealings between the Wabanaki and the Americans, and the events and court cases leading up to the enactment of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA), which resolved Wabanaki land claims against the State of Maine for the illegal taking of tribal lands. This Article then analyzes the legislative history and text of the MICSA and juxtaposes this record with federal common law interpreting the rights of federally recognized Tribal nations. Finally, this Article argues that federal common law interpreting the rights of Tribal nations should be relied upon when interpreting the scope of specific Wabanaki rights that were never ceded or relinquished in treaties or in the MICSA.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.