American Indian Law Journal — Vol. 9, Issue 1

Here:

Current Issue: Volume 9, Issue 1 (2020)

Articles

PDF

ANOTHER INAPPROPRIATE F WORD: FIDUCIARY DOCTRINE AND THE CROWN-INDIGENOUS RELATIONSHIP IN CANADA
Bryan Birtles

PDF

“ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE”: NAVAJO NATION V. SAN JUAN COUNTY AND VOTER SUPPRESSION OF NATIVE AMERICANS
Carter Fox

PDF

MORTGAGE LENDING ON TRIBAL LANDS: FEDERAL FAIR LENDING PROTECTIONS, PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, AND TRIBAL SOLUTIONS FOR INCREASING ACCESS TO MORTGAGE CREDIT ON TRIBAL LANDS
Abby Hogan

PDF

REHABILITATIVE JUSTICE: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HEALING TO WELLNESS, OPIOID INTERVENTION, AND DRUG COURTS
Majidah M. Cochran and Christine L. Kettel

PDF

THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT’S APPLICATION TO CIVIL COMMITMENTS OF INDIAN CHILDREN IN STATE COURT PROCEEDING
Courtney Lewis

PDF

PEYOTE CRISIS CONFRONTING MODERN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES: THE DECLINING PEYOTE POPULATION AND A DEMAND FOR CONSERVATION
James D. Muneta

John Minode’e Petoskey on Indigenous Traditional Knowledge Protection

John Minode’e Petoskey has published “International Traditional Knowledge Protection and Indigenous Self Determination” in UCLA Law School’s Indigenous Peoples’ Journal of Law, Culture & Resistance.

An excerpt:

In February 2019, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) issued a “Proposal For a Study by the WIPO Secretariat on Existing Sui Generis Systems For the Protection of Traditional Knowl- edge in WIPO Member States.” This effort is a part of the organization’s ongoing endeavors to assist indigenous people in protecting their Traditional Knowledge (TK) from misappropriation and outright theft. This Comment will answer WIPO’s call by discussing history of indigenous TK in four countries and how the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (IACA) can offer a viable model for TK protection in light of this history.

New Scholarship on the Tribal Right to Object to the Death Penalty

Grant Christenson has published “The Wrongful Death of an Indian: A Tribe’s Right to Object to the Death Penalty” in the UCLA Law Review Discourse.

Cal. Law Review Online Roundtable: Responding to “Politics, Indian Law, and the Constitution”

The article is here.

New Scholarship on Taxing Indian Country Cannabis

Mark J. Cowan has posted “Taxing Cannabis on the Reservation,” forthcoming in the American Business Law Journal, on SSRN.

The abstract:

American Indian tribes that enter the cannabis industry confront a multi-sovereign tax system that lacks certainty and horizontal equity. The complex interaction of state legalization and taxation of cannabis, federal tax law, the status of tribes as both governments and business enterprises, and the legal and tax landscape in Indian country can give tribes tax advantages and disadvantages compared to off-reservation cannabis dispensaries. This article analyzes these tax issues, examines them in the context of prior challenges posed by Indian gaming, and suggests reforms that address the tax inequities that can result from cannabis sales on Indian reservations.

Administrative Law Review Podcast on the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe’s Federal Recognition Struggle

Here.

On today’s episode of A Hard Look, a Junior Staffer on ALR, Olivia Miller, joins host, Sarah Knarzer, and Professor Matthew Fletcher to discuss the tribal recognition process and the barriers it poses to tribes across the United States, and in particular the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe. Earlier this year, and in the middle of a surging coronavirus pandemic, the Bureau of Indian Affairs announced its intention to revoke the Mashpee Wampanoag’s land from its federal trust. This action is only a continuation of the Mashpee Wampanoag’s four hundred year struggle for tribal survival, dating back to the origins of the Thanksgiving myth.

Olivia and Professor Fletcher discuss Olivia’s comment, which she wrote as part of ALR’s comment writing process, to identify why the tribal recognition process is such a difficult, expensive, and frustrating administrative process for tribes who want and need to be federally recognized.

Trevor Reed on Fair Use and Cultural Appropriation of Indigenous IP

Trevor Reed has posted “Fair Use as Cultural Appropriation,” forthcoming in the California Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Over the last four decades, scholars from diverse disciplines have documented a wide variety of cultural appropriations from Indigenous peoples and the harms these inflict. And yet, there are currently no federal laws other than copyright that limit the appropriation of song, dance, oral history, and other forms of intangible culture. Copyright is admittedly an imperfect fit for combatting cultural appropriations – it is a porous form of protection, allowing some publicly beneficial uses of protected works  without the consent of the copyright owner under certain exceptions, foremost being copyright’s fair use doctrine. This article evaluates fair use as a gate-keeping mechanism for unauthorized uses of culture. As codified in the 1976 Copyright Revision Act, the fair use doctrine’s four-part test is supposed to help fact finders determine whether an unauthorized use of another’s work is reasonable in light of copyright’s goals of promoting  cultural production. But, while the fair use test has evolved to address questions about the purpose behind an appropriation, the amount and substance of the work used, and the effects of the appropriation on the market for the work, the vital inquiry about the “nature” of the original work and the impact of unauthorized appropriation on its creative environment has been all but forgotten by lower federal courts. Combining doctrinal analysis, settler-colonial theory, and ethnographic fieldwork involving ongoing appropriations of copyrightable Indigenous culture, this article shows how this “forgotten factor” in the fair use analysis is key to assessing the real impacts unauthorized appropriations have on culturally diverse forms of creativity. Thus, if we are committed to the development of creativity in all of its varieties and natures, a rehabilitation of the forgotten factor is both urgent and necessary.

Looks like important reading to me.

Jonodev Chaudhuri on McGirt in the Harvard Law Review

Jonodev Chaudhuri has published “Reflection on McGirt v. Oklahoma” in the Harvard Law Review Forum.

Harvard Law Review Case Comment on McGirt v. Oklahoma

Here.

Michael Doran on the Equal Protection Challenge to Indian Law

Michael Doran has posted “The Equal-Protection Challenge to Federal Indian Law,” forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law & Public Affairs, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

This article addresses a significant challenge to federal Indian law currently emerging in the federal courts. In 2013, the Supreme Court suggested that the Indian Child Welfare Act may be unconstitutional, and litigation on that question is now pending in the Fifth Circuit. The theory underlying the attack is that the statute distinguishes between Indians and non-Indians and thus uses the suspect classification of race, triggering strict scrutiny under the equal-protection component of the Due Process Clause. If the challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act succeeds, the entirety of federal Indian law, which makes hundreds or even thousands of distinctions based on Indian descent, may be unconstitutional. This article defends the constitutionality of federal Indian law with a novel argument grounded in existing Supreme Court case law. Specifically, this article shows that the congressional plenary power over Indians and Indian tribes, which the Supreme Court has recognized for nearly a century and a half and which inevitably requires Congress to make classifications involving Indians and Indian tribes, compels the application of a rational-basis standard of review to federal Indian law.