Scholarship

Harvard Law Review Profile of Native Hawaiian Land Restitution

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Harvard Law Review has published Developments in the Law — “Aloha ‘Āina: Native Hawaiian Land Restitution.”

An excerpt:

Mauna Kea is just one recent case in Hawaiian history that betrays a restitution claim. This Chapter argues that the lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom unjustly enriched the United States when the Kingdom was overthrown, and that the State of Hawai‘i benefited from the same when it was admitted into the Union. The wealth accrued due to the possession of this land has continued to unjustly enrich these governments. Courts should recognize a restitution remedy for Native Hawaiians seeking their rights to these lands.

Fletcher on the Pandemic and Tribal Powers over Nonmembers

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

I posted a draft paper, “Indian Lives Matter: Pandemics and Inherent Tribal Powers,” on SSRN.

Here is the introduction to the paper:

America’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 is a microcosm of how Americans see the nation. It is a story of rugged individualism versus community needs. Many Americans insist on freedom to do as they please, rigorously pushing back on government. But in an environment where small numbers of individuals can easily transmit a deadly infection to others, creating the exponential increase in infections, rugged individualism is a terrible threat. Pandemics, luckily for humans, do not seem to occur all that frequently, but when they do occur, they can dramatically alter human history.

Indian people know all too well the impact of pandemics on human populations, having barely survived smallpox outbreaks and other diseases transmitted during the generations of early contact between themselves and Europeans. Indian people also suffered disproportionately from the last pandemic to hit the United States about a century ago. Some things have changed for the better for Indian people, namely tribal self-governance, but many things are not much better, including the public health situation of many Indian people.

Modern tribal governments navigate a tricky legal and political environment. While tribal governments have power to govern their own citizens, nonmembers are everywhere in Indian country, and the courts are skeptical of tribal authority over nonmembers. For example, after the Navajo Nation announced a 57-hour curfew for the weekend of April 10-13, 2020 (Easter weekend for many), the sheriff’s offices of Cibola and McKinley counties sent letters to the tribe insisting that the tribe refrain from citing nonmembers during the curfew, further insisting that nonmembers are governed more “fully” by the Governor of the State of New Mexico. Further, the fact that it is the county sheriff’s offices – and not counsel for the nonmembers – sending the letters is a deeply consequential signal to the tribal government. Of course, allowing nonmembers freedom to flout the tribe’s curfew defeats the purpose of the curfew. During a pandemic, the limitations on powers of tribal government could lead to tragedy.

This short essay is designed to lay down the argument favoring tribal regulatory powers over nonmembers in Indian country during a pandemic. It should be an easy argument, but federal Indian law makes it more complicated than it should be.

Here are some of the primary source documents noted in the paper:

Cibola county letter

McKinley County Sheriff Letter

The_Sacramento_Bee_Mon__Oct_28__1918_

Continue reading →

Tweedy on Berger on Equal Protection

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From JOTWELL, here.

Kirsten Carlson on Rethinking Legislative Advocacy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted “Rethinking Legislative Advocacy” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In an age of statutes, legislative advocates influence the substantive content of almost every law. Yet scholars know very little about the role that advocates play in shaping statutory law because the study of legislative advocacy has been left to political scientists, who focus on the political rather than the legal aspects of legislative lawmaking. This Article responds to this gap in the literature by presenting an innovative, mixed methods approach to studying legislative advocacy that brings law back into the study of legislative advocacy and provides more accurate descriptions of how legislative advocates behave. This legal approach to legislative advocacy improves on the existing political science literature by emphasizing the legislative process as a lawmaking enterprise and highlighting the importance of the substantive content of statutory laws to legislative advocates and their behavior. The Article demonstrates the utility of this approach by presenting new empirical data on American Indian advocacy. My analysis produces two important insights about legislative advocates’ behavior overlooked in previous studies. First, it reveals that advocates perceive legislative advocacy to be about modifying the substantive content of a proposed law. Legislative advocates take the law seriously as they engage in nuanced and sophisticated strategies to interact with legislators and other political actors to craft statutory laws. They advocate on a wide range of proposed laws, shift their positions strategically throughout the legislative process, and frequently seek to modify proposed laws. Second, my account of Indian advocacy emphasizes that legislative advocacy involves legal as well as political work. Indian advocates regularly used legal frames and arguments to educate and persuade legislators to shape the law in ways that better responded to their needs.

American Indian Law Review, Volume 44, Issue 1

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Front Pages   PDF

Article

How the New Deal Became a Raw Deal for Indian Nations: Justice Stanley Reed and the Tee-Hit-Ton Decision on Indian Title – Kent McNeil   PDF

Comments

Keeping Cultural Bias Out of the Courtroom: How ICWA “Qualified Expert Witnesses” Make a Difference – Elizabeth Low   PDF

Being Uighur . . . with “Chinese Characteristics”: Analyzing China’s Legal Crusade Against Uighur Identity – Brennan Davis   PDF

Notes

United States v. Bryant: The Results of Upholding Women’s Rights and Tribal Sovereignty – Madalynn Martin   PDF

What Are the Odds? The Potential for Tribal Control of Sports Gambling After Murphy v. NCAA – Haley Maynard   PDF

Special Feature

Thickening the Thin Blue Line in Indian Country: Affirming Tribal Authority to Arrest Non-Indians – Alex Treiger   PDF

New Fletcher Paper: “The Rise and Fall of the Ogemakaan”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Please check out my new paper, “The Rise and Fall of the Ogemakaan,” now available on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Anishinaabe (Odawa, Bodewadmi, and Ojibwe) legal and political philosophy is buried under the infrastructure of modern self-determination law and policy. Modern Anishinaabe tribes are rough copies of American governments. The Anishinaabeg (people) usually choose their ogemaag (leaders) through an at-large election process that infects tribal politics with individualized self-interest. Those elected leaders, what I call ogemaakaan (artificial leaders) preside over modern governments that encourage hierarchy, political opportunism, and tyranny of the majority. While modern tribal governments are extraordinary successes compared to the era of total federal control, a significant number of tribes face intractable political disputes that can traced to the philosophical disconnect from culture and tradition.

Anishinaabe philosophy prioritizes ogemaag who are deferential and serve as leaders only for limited purposes and times. Ogemaag are true representatives who act only when and how instructed to do so by their constituents. Their decisions are rooted in cultural and traditional philosophies, including for example Mino-Bimaadiziwin (the act of living a good life), Inawendewin (relational accountability), Niizhwaaswii Mishomis/Nokomis Kinoomaagewinawaan (the Seven Gifts the Grandfathers or Grandmothers), and the Dodemaag (clans). I offer suggestions on how modern tribal government structures can be lightly modified to restore much of this philosophy.

Northern Public Affairs Special Issue on Canadian Indian Treaty Implementation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

New Fletcher Paper, “Textualism’s Gaze”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Available on SSRN, here.

Here is the abstract:

In recent years, perhaps because of the influence of Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court appears to place greater emphasis on texts than ever before. “We’re all textualists now,” Justice Kagan declared in 2015. But it is one thing to say a court will prioritize the text. It is another thing to choose which text is to be prioritized.

Follow the textualism of constitutional interpretation and one sees judges prioritize the public understanding of the privileged white men in power at the time of the framing of the constitutional text. Follow the textualism of federal statutory interpretation and one sees judges prioritize the text exclusively, and if the judges engage with the legislative history of the statute they will engage with the public understanding of the legislators who enacted the law, again, largely privileged white men. The victory of textualism is not necessarily in the outcomes, but in significantly narrowing the scope of evidence available to interpret the text, in some cases to almost nothing but the bare words of the statute. Women, persons of color, and other marginalized persons and entities are almost never relevant to the textualist’s gaze.

The narrow focus of the textualist’s gaze also warps how Indian law matters are decided. The judiciary rarely considers how the governments and people most affected by the text — Indian tribes and individual Indians — understand the meaning of the text. The judiciary, whether it intends to or not, considers Indians and tribes as extraneous to the interpretive process.

Wolters Kluwer (Aspen) Publishes Second Edition of Fletcher’s American Indian Tribal Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Website here.

Gregory Ablavsky on the Presentment Clause and Tomorrow’s Argument in Brackeen

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Brackeen, the Indian Child Welfare Act, and the Presentment Clause: A Very Pink Herring” on SLS blogs.

An excerpt:

If the Presentment Clause bars Congress from honoring the divergent policy judgments of other sovereigns, then federalism is in trouble. After all, as the briefs stress and the Supreme Court has explicitly endorsed, Congress has expressly adopted state law as federal law in the Assimilative Crimes Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act. It has expressly authorized states to create wage and hour standards higher than the federal government in the Federal Labor Standards Act. It has allowed states to establish different water and air quality standards from the federal government upon EPA approval, a power that the Court has repeatedly ruled on without saying boo.