New Scholarship on Sohappy v. Smith/United States v. Oregon

Michael C. Blumm and Cari Baermann have posted “The Belloni Decision and Its Legacy: United States v. Oregon and Its Far-Reaching Effects After a Half-Century” on SSRN. It is forthcoming in Environmental Law.

Abstract:

Fifty years ago, Judge Robert Belloni handed down an historic treaty fishing rights case in Sohappy v. Smith, later consolidated into United States v. Oregon, which remains among the longest running federal district court cases in history. Judge Belloni ruled that the state violated Columbia River tribes’ treaty rights by failing to ensure “a fair share” to tribal harvesters and called upon the state to give separate consideration to the tribal fishery and make it management priority co-equal with its goals for non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries. This result was premised on Belloni’s recognition of the inherent biases in state regulation, despite a lack of facial discrimination. 

The decision was remarkable because only a year before, in Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to accord considerable deference to state regulation of tribal harvests (which it would soon clarify and circumscribe). Instead of deference, the Belloni decision reinstated burdens on state regulation that the Supreme Court had imposed a quarter-century earlier, in Tulee v. Washington, but seemed to ignore in its Puyallup decision. The directive for separate management was prescient because otherwise, tribal harvests would remain overwhelmed by more numerous and politically powerful commercial and recreational fishers. 

Judge Belloni eventually grew tired of resolving numerous conflicts over state regulation of the tribal fishery, calling for the establishment of a comprehensive plan, agreed to by both the state and the tribes, to manage Columbia Basin fish harvests. Eventually, such a plan would be negotiated, implemented, and amended over the years. Today, the Columbia River Comprehensive Management plan is still in effect a half-century after the Belloni decision, although the district court’s oversight role is now somewhat precariously perched due to statements by Belloni’s latest successor. Nonetheless, the plan remains the longest standing example of tribal-state co-management in history and a model for other co-management efforts. This article examines the origins, effects, and legacy of the Belloni decision over the last half-century.

Abigail Echo-Hawk on Decolonizing Data

Here

When we think about data, and how it’s been gathered, is that, from marginalized communities, it was never gathered to help or serve us. It was primarily done to show the deficits in our communities, to show where there are gaps. And it’s always done from a deficit-based framework. They talk about how our communities have the highest rates of obesity, have the highest rates of diabetes, highest rates of infant mortality. How our people may be experiencing high rates of opiate misuse.

What they don’t talk about is the strengths of our community. What we know, particularly for indigenous people, is that there was a genocide and assimilation policies and termination policies that were perpetuated against us. If they had worked, we wouldn’t be here. And so we were always strength-based people, who passed on and continued knowledge systems regardless of people who tried to destroy us.

American Indian Law Review Vol. 43, Issue 1 Now Available

Here:

PDF

Articles

Comments

Notes

Special Feature

American Indian Law Journal Vol. 7, Issue 2 Now Available

Here:

Articles

Gregory Ablavsky on the Origins of Dual Federalism

Gregory Ablavsky has published “Empire States: The Coming of Dual Federalism” in the Yale Law Journal (PDF).

Here is the abstract:

This Article offers an alternate account of federalism’s late eighteenth-century origins. In place of scholarly and doctrinal accounts that portray federalism as a repudiation of models of unitary sovereignty, it emphasizes the federalist ideology of dual sovereignty as a form of centralization—a shift from a world of diffuse sovereignty to one where authority was increasingly imagined as concentrated in the hands of only two legitimate sovereigns.

In making this claim, the Article focuses on two sequential late eighteenth-century transformations. The first concerned sovereignty. Pre-Revolutionary ideas about sovereignty reflected early modern corporatist understandings of authority as well as imperial realities of uneven jurisdiction. But the Revolution elevated a new understanding of sovereignty in which power derived from the consent of a uniform people. This conception empowered state legislatures, which, throughout the 1780s, sought to use their status under new state constitutions as the sole repositories of popular authority to subordinate competing claims to authority made by corporations, local institutions, Native nations, and separatist movements.

The second shift came with the drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which bolstered federal authority partly in order to protect state authority against internal competitors—an aim reflected in the Guarantee and New State Clauses. Ultimately, the Constitution both limited and enhanced state authority; it entrenched a framework of dual sovereignty. After ratification, competitors to state sovereignty were increasingly constrained to appeal to some federal right or power. What had previously been contests among supposedly coequal sovereigns—what modern scholars would call horizontal federalism—became questions of vertical federalism, issues of whether federal authority would vindicate states or their opponents.

Although the Article concludes with some implications of this history for present-day federalism doctrine and theory, its primary contribution is descriptive. Judges and lawyers routinely and almost unthinkingly invoke localism and power diffusion as the historical values of federalism. Yet the history explored here challenges whether these near-universal assumptions about federalism’s aims actually reflect what federalism was designed to accomplish.

Maggie Blackhawk on Indian Law as a Paradigm

Maggie Blackhawk has published “Federal Indian Law as Paradigm Within Public Law” in the Harvard Law Review (PDF).

Here is an excerpt from the abstract:

U.S. public law has long taken slavery and Jim Crow segregation as a paradigm case through which to understand our constitutional law: cases adjudicating issues of slavery and segregation form the keystones of our constitutional canon. Reconstruction, or the so-called “Second Founding,” and the Civil Rights Era periodize our constitutional histories. Slavery and Jim Crow segregation supply normative lessons about the strengths and failings of our constitutional framework. This paradigm teaches that if there is too much power in the states and not enough limitation on state power in the form of national power or rights, America might again reenact similar atrocities. Although there is much to learn from the United States’ tragic history with slavery and Jim Crow segregation, resting our public law on this binary paradigm has led to incomplete models and theories. This Nation’s tragic history of colonialism and violent dispossession of Native lands, resources, culture, and even children offers different, yet equally important, lessons about our constitutional framework.

In this Article, I argue for a more inclusive paradigm that reaches beyond the black/white binary, and I highlight the centrality of federal Indian law and this Nation’s tragic history with colonialism to public law. Currently, to the extent that federal Indian law is discussed at all within public law, it is generally considered sui generis and consigned to a “tiny backwater.” While I concede that the colonial status of Native peoples and the recognition of inherent tribal sovereignty do render aspects of federal Indian law exceptional, federal Indian law and Native history have much to teach about reimagining the constitutional history of the United States. Interactions between the national government and Native Nations have shaped the warp and woof of our constitutional law from the Founding across a range of substantive areas, including vertical and horizontal separation of powers, the Treaty Clause, war powers, executive powers in times of exigency, and many others. I aim to open a conversation as to whether these doctrines ought to take their rightful place in the canon or, perhaps, the anticanon.

Kristen Carpenter and Angela Riley on Privatizing the Reservation

Kristen A. Carpenter and Angela R. Riley have published “Privatizing the Reservation?” with the Stanford Law Review (PDF).

Abstract:

The problems of American Indian poverty and reservation living conditions have inspired various explanations. One response advanced by some economists and commentators, which may be gaining traction within the Trump Administration, calls for the “privatization” of Indian lands. Proponents of this view contend that reservation poverty is rooted in the federal Indian trust arrangement, which preserves the tribal land base by limiting the marketability of lands within reservations. In order to maximize wealth on reservations, policymakers are advocating for measures that would promote the individuation and alienability of tribal lands, while diminishing federal and tribal oversight.

Taking a different view, this Article complicates and challenges the narrative of Indian poverty and land tenure advanced by privatization advocates. We focus on real estate and housing in Indian Country to make three points. First, we argue that the salience of Indian homelands as places of collective religious significance, socioeconomic sustenance, and territorial governance has been lost in the privatization debate, which also largely disregards issues of remedial justice associated with conquest and colonization. Second, we introduce to the legal literature new empirical data and economic analysis from the Native Nations Institute demonstrating that the current system of land tenure in Indian Country is much more varied, and recent innovations in federal-tribal housing and finance programs are more promising, than some of the calls for privatization would suggest. Finally, using specific examples from Indian Country, we highlight a model of indigenous self-determination and sustainability, rooted in the international human rights movement, that deserves attention in ongoing domestic policy debates about land tenure, and which has the potential to advance the well-being of humanity more broadly.

Most Downloaded Indian Law Papers (2018-2019 Academic Year)

Here (now updated with BEPRESS downloads):

The Tribal Franchise: An Expression Of Tribal Sovereignty And A Potential Solution To The Problem Of Mass DisenrollmentBrent Mulvaney, Seattle University School of Law

Sovereign Resilience: Reviving Private Sector Economic Institutions in Indian Country

BYU Law Review 2018 Issue 6
Number of pages: 59 Posted: 01 Aug 2018
Accepted Paper Series

Transforming Property: Reclaiming Modern Indigenous Land Tenures

California Law Review, Forthcoming
Number of pages: 156 Posted: 10 Nov 2018 Last Revised: 02 May 2019
Accepted Paper Series

Empire States: The Coming of Dual Federalism

Yale Law Journal, Forthcoming
Number of pages: 86 Posted: 19 Mar 2019
Accepted Paper Series
Stanford Law School

‘Felix Cohen Was the Blackstone of Federal Indian Law’: Taking the Comparison Seriously

Forthcoming British Journal of American Legal Studies Vol. 8
Number of pages: 43 Posted: 18 Jul 2018
Accepted Paper Series

The Extraterritorial Reach of Tribal Court Criminal Jurisdiction

Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 294, 2019
Number of pages: 18 Posted: 24 Aug 2018 Last Revised: 09 Jan 2019
Accepted Paper Series

Intellectual Property, Traditional Knowledge, and Traditional Cultural Expressions in Native American Tribal Codes

Akron Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 4, 2017
Number of pages: 37 Posted: 04 Sep 2018
Accepted Paper Series

From Foundational Law to Limiting Principles in Federal Indian Law

Montana Law Review (Forthcoming), University of Utah College of Law Research Paper No. 293
Number of pages: 27 Posted: 25 Oct 2018 Last Revised: 13 Nov 2018
Working Paper Series
Enough Is Enough: Ten Years Of Carcieri V. SalazarBethany C. Sullivan, Jennifer L. Turner
Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University of Montana

Agency Pragmatism in Addressing Law’s Failure: The Curious Case of Federal ‘Deemed Approvals’ of Tribal-State Gaming Compacts

52 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 49 (2018), U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2019-01
Number of pages: 54 Posted: 18 Jan 2019 Last Revised: 27 Mar 2019
Accepted Paper Series

Virginia’s First Slaves: American Indians

Number of pages: 24 Posted: 14 Jan 2019
Working Paper Series

Indian Nations and the Constitution

70 Me. L. Rev. 199 (2018), Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 19-05
Number of pages: 13 Posted: 07 Sep 2018 Last Revised: 14 Mar 2019
Accepted Paper Series

Originalism and Indians

Tulane Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 269, 2018
Number of pages: 69 Posted: 14 Feb 2019
Accepted Paper Series

Indigenous Rights to Water & Environmental Protection

Harvard Civil Rights- Civil Liberties Law Review (CR-CL), Vol. 53, No. 2, 2018, University of Washington School of Law Research Paper Series
Number of pages: 45 Posted: 20 Nov 2018
Accepted Paper Series

Native American Oral Evidence: Finding a New Hearsay Exception

Number of pages: 48 Posted: 17 Feb 2019 Last Revised: 27 Feb 2019
Working Paper Series
Boston University – School of Law

Indigenous Resilience

Arizona Law Review (Forthcoming), BYU Law Research Paper No. 19-08
Number of pages: 65 Posted: 22 Mar 2019
Accepted Paper Series

Cultivating Professional Identity and Resilience Through the Study of Federal Indian Law

2018 Brigham Young University Law Review 1429, BYU Law Research Paper No. 19-07
Number of pages: 23 Posted: 22 Mar 2019
Accepted Paper Series

Patently Inconsistent: State & Tribal Sovereign Immunity in Inter Partes Review

St. John’s Law Review, Forthcoming, St. John’s Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-0006
Number of pages: 63 Posted: 01 Mar 2019
Accepted Paper Series

Searching for Principle: Reconciling Tribal Membership and Liberal Values

Indigenous Law Journal, Vol. 16, 2018
Number of pages: 20 Posted: 15 Dec 2018
Accepted Paper Series

Fletcher Book Review — ” Protectors: The Indian Trust and Killers of the Flower Moon”

My review of David Grann’s Killers of the Flower Moon has been published in the Michigan Law Review. You can download the paper here or here.

An excerpt:

Killers of the Flower Moon will be an eye-opener for those who are not aware of what it means for the United States to shirk its duties to Indian people. Osage people alive today are direct victims of the Osage Reign of Terror (pp. 280–91). Grann’s book tells an interesting story about the early days of the FBI, the development of early criminal investigation techniques, and the slow death of frontier injustice and corruption. It is a story ripe for a suspenseful and entertaining film. But Killers of the Flower Moon could be so much more. For whatever reason—be it the fame of the author, the focus on major American historical figures like J. Edgar Hoover, or the fact that the FBI is investigating the current president—Grann’s work has the attention of much of the American public. Killers of the Flower Moon should be a call to action for the United States to take its duty of protection seriously, but instead the stories of real American Indian lives are a framing mechanism for a true-crime FBI story. Indian tribes standing against the political winds that threaten the trust relationship, the duty of protection the ancestors negotiated for in the nineteenth century, deserve more. The thousands of American Indian women who suffer sexual assaults every year and the thousands of American Indian children who witness and suffer violence every year deserve much more.

Continuing thanks to Wilson Pipestem and Alex Skibine.

Fletcher: “Indian Children and the Fifth Amendment”

Forthcoming in the Montana Law Review’s Browning Symposium issue, available at SSRN here.

An excerpt:

Many of my first memories revolve around my grandmother Laura Mamagona’s apartment in Grand Rapids, Michigan. She shared the apartment with my uncle Crockett, who was a college student. Her apartment was the upstairs room of an old house on the side of a hill on College Street. My memories are mostly of domestic activities. Cooking. Sweeping. Sitting around. Playing with trains. Leafing through Crockett’s Sports Illustrated magazine collection. Laura worked the night shift at the veteran’s hospital across from Riverside Park. Early on weekday mornings, June, my mother, would drop me off at Laura’s place in her VW bug, the first car I remember. I had my own crib at Laura’s, one I can remember escaping pretty easily. Often, Laura would sleep most of the morning while I puttered around the house. Sometimes, Crockett would be there. Family lore tells that once, June dropped me off earlier than usual and Laura had worked a little late, so I was probably there alone for a short while. I heard the story so often growing up that I can seemingly remember that day, too. This was in the mid-1970s, before Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Recently, my wife Wenona Singel discovered documents about Laura’s childhood home life in the National Archives in Chicago. Wenona was there to research family boarding school histories. Laura’s name as a young woman, Laura Stevens, was listed alongside several of her brothers and sisters as former students at Mount Pleasant Indian Industrial Boarding School. They were all born with the Pokagon surname, but Laura’s dad, Peter Stevens, changed their names, thinking it would help the family blend in with white America. Laura never attended the boarding school, and instead spent those years in quarantine in a hospital in Kalamazoo. We think she tested positive for tuberculosis at the boarding school intake and was diverted to quarantine. While Laura was there in the hospital during several of her early teen years, her biological mother walked on. Laura had younger brothers and sisters in her family home in Allegan County, Michigan. So, Peter—who was single then—drove to Kalamazoo and took Laura home. As a young woman, but the oldest sibling left in the house, Laura was forced to replace her mom. The archive documents contain reports by social workers who visited the house, we think, on somewhat random occasions. They were spot checks, of sorts, by the State of Michigan, to see how this Indian family with no mother in the home was coming along. The social workers detailed every aspect of the Stevens’ home in the reports. They noted how many Bibles were in the house and where they were placed. They noted how many portraits of Jesus Christ there were and the location each was hung. They reported Laura’s younger siblings were all dressed for company and quietly studying. They focused especially on teenaged Laura. There she was, sweeping the kitchen. There she was, cooking dinner. There she was, folding clothes. The social workers were impressed. Well, they were barely impressed. Laura was, after all, still an Indian. Reading the reports, one can’t help but think that young Laura Stevens was the only thing stopping the State from taking Peter Stevens’s kids away from him. Imagine if she had been out shopping on the day of the spot visit. The little Stevens kids would have been home alone, dishes in the sink and dirty clothes on the floor. Laura might have come home from shopping, and then later Peter from work, to find a home stripped of its children. However, this never came to be. Perhaps out of sheer luck, Laura was always home when the social workers showed up.

And:

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a truly fateful provision for Indian people. On occasion, Wenona and I teach at the Pre-Law Summer Institute (PLSI) for American Indians. It’s an eight week program that serves a little bit like a summer boot camp for Indian people who are planning to matriculate to law schools in the fall. Wenona teaches Property and I teach Indian Law. Compared with the regular law school survey-the-field course in Federal Indian Law, the short class I teach at PLSI is even more truncated. I can only assign a cross-section of the “greatest hits” of Indian law Supreme Court decisions because I don’t have time to conduct a full survey. I also try to assign cases where tribal interests prevailed. It turns out tribal interests and Indian people prevail more than not when the Fifth Amendment is in play. However, there are cases where tribal interests painfully and dramatically suffer under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fifth Amendment.