Aila Hoss on Tribal Public Health Data and Surveillance

Aila Hoss has posted her paper “Exploring Legal Issues in Tribal Public Health Data and Surveillance” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Tribes are sovereign nations with a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Within the United States, there are 573 federally recognized Tribal nations with distinct governments, cultures, and histories. Each Tribe exercises both political sovereignty and cultural sovereignty through Tribal governance and their unique cultural teachings. As part of the exercise of this sovereignty, Tribes have the inherent authority to engage in public health activities that support the safety and welfare of their citizens. An essential component to public health practice includes the collection and surveillance of health data. Surveillance data allows for the identification of health issues as well as instances in which certain populations are being disproportionately burdened by these health issues. This data is essential to effective policy making. Law is the foundation of public health practice, including the underpinnings of public health data collection and surveillance and ensuring the privacy of such data. Much has been written on public health data and surveillance at the state and local level. Yet, Tribal law and the federal laws that define the relationships between Tribes, states, and the federal government add an additional complexity to the collection and surveillance of law for American Indian and Alaska Natives. This article explores legal issues in Tribal data and surveillance. First, this article provides a summary of Tribal public health and health care systems. Next, it outlines surveillance laws and practical challenges in Tribal surveillance. Finally, it describes some of the legal strategies used to promote effective data collection and surveillance.

New Scholarship on Tribal Public Health Law

Aila Hoss has posted “A Framework for Tribal Public Health Law” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Law plays an integral role in advancing public health. Public health advancements in areas such as vaccine-preventable diseases, tobacco control, and motor vehicle safety have been driven by legal interventions, such as vaccination requirements for school attendance, smoke-free laws, and seat belt laws. The field of public health law continues to expand in the depth and breadth of the study of law as a tool in advancing public health. However, much of this research has focused on the state and local governments and does not contemplate the cultural, legal, and practical realities of Tribes and American Indian and Alaska Native communities.

The federal government recognizes 573 Tribes within the boundaries of the United States and maintains a government-to-government relationship with these Tribes. Unlike state and local governments, Tribes are sovereign nations and have the inherent authority to “make their own laws and be ruled by them.” This unique governing structure and relationship with the United States merits its own investigation and research in terms of public health law. Additionally, evidence has shown that American Indian and Alaska Native communities are disproportionately burdened by a variety of health outcomes including diabetes, unintentional injuries such as motor vehicle injuries, and chronic liver disease, which further supports the value of developing a framework in which to understand Tribal public health law through a Tribal lens, rather than state and local public health authorities.

This article offers a framework for public health law as applied to Tribes, whose history, culture, legal structure, and population health outcomes differ greatly from other jurisdictions. Additionally, the complexities of both federal Indian law and emerging public health crises establish a need to evaluate these issues in a systematic way. Part I of this article provides background on public health law, highlighting the insufficiency of existing scholarship in Tribal public health. Part II proposes a framework for understanding and researching Tribal public health law based on Tribal sovereignty, federal Indian law, Tribal law, and an analysis of structural violence. Finally, Part III concludes with a case study to demonstrate the need for establishing a separate framework for Tribal public health law and how this framework can support thoughtful and rigorous research in this area.

New Issue of Transmotion Journal: Native American Narratives in a Global Context

Here.

Examples of articles and papers:

Martin William Walsh
Omar Zahzah
Matthew L.M. Fletcher

 

Recent American Indian Law Scholarship

On SSRN:

Owning Geronimo but Not Elmer McCurdy: The Unique Property Status of Native American Remains

Number of pages: 54 Posted: 23 Jun 2019
Working Paper Series
Stanford Law School

Perverting History: Rice v. Cayetano’s Erasure of the Fight for Native Hawaiian Self-Determination

Number of pages: 25 Posted: 23 Jun 2019
Working Paper Series
Yale University, Law School, Students

Environmental Justice and the Possibilities for Environmental Law

Environmental Law (2019), U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper 
Number of pages: 19 Posted: 21 Jun 2019
Accepted Paper Series
University of Colorado Law School

Call for submissions to the Indigenous Peoples’ Journal of Law Culture & Resistance

Here:

IPJLCR Call for Submissions

Montana Law Review Browning Symposium Issue

Here:

Transcript

Articles

Essay

Note

Poem

 

Michael Doran on Tribal Sovereignty and Fundamental Rights

Michael Doran has posted “Redefining Tribal Sovereignty for the Era of Fundamental Rights” on SSRN. It is forthcoming in the Indiana Law Journal.

The abstract:

This article explains a longstanding problem in federal Indian law. For two centuries, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the retained, inherent sovereignty of American Indian tribes. But more recently, the Court has developed the implicit-divestiture theory to deny tribal governments criminal and civil jurisdiction over non-members, even with respect to activities on tribal lands. Legal scholars have puzzled over this move from a territorial-based definition of tribal sovereignty to a membership-based definition; they have variously explained it as the Court’s abandonment of the foundational principles of Indian law, the product of the Court’s indifference or even racist hostility to Indians, or a simple lack of doctrinal coherence in the Court’s decisions. This article provides a different explanation. The implicit-divestiture cases represent the Court’s effort to address a trilemma among three incompatible objectives: preservation of the traditional territorial-based definition of tribal sovereignty; preservation of tribal governments’ placement outside the federalist structure of the constitutional order; and preservation of fundamental rights. The Court has chosen to resolve the trilemma by redefining tribal sovereignty to deny tribal jurisdiction over non-members. Whether right or wrong, the implicit-divestiture theory is the Court’s good-faith attempt to preserve as much tribal sovereignty as possible without infringing on fundamental rights or forcing tribal governments into the federalist structure.

Indian Law Articles in This Month’s Judicial Notice (New York Court Publication)

Here

4 New York’s Quest for Jurisdiction over Indian Lands by Hon. Carrie Garrow

20 New York State’s Recent Judicial Collaboration with Indigenous Partners: The Story of New York’s Federal-State-Tribal Courts and Indian Nations Justice Forum by Hon. Marcy L. Kahn

34 The Origins and Evolution of the Indian Child Welfare Act by Danielle J. Mayberry

48 Thomas Indian School: Social Experiment Resulting in Traumatic Effects by Lori V. Quigley, Ph.D.

BYU Law Review Indian Law Symposium

Here:

Articles

Comment

Frank Pommersheim’s Valedictory Notes and Collage

Frank Pommersheim has published “I Was So Much Older Then/I’m Younger Than That Now: Valedictory Notes and Collage” in the South Dakota Law Review (pdf).

Here is an excerpt:

Teacher, Scholar, Tribal Justice, Colleague. These are theseasons turning and braiding across my years and decades in thefield, the factory, and the monastery of my work and vocation.The toil of craft and building community. Yet there is alsosomething valedictory and elegiac that guides this pen and spillsthis ink in the desire to provide both a professional and personalsense of my thirty-five years of service at the University of SouthDakota School of Law (hereinafter USD).

Frank (far right) at the Montana Law Review symposium 2018