New Scholarship on Religious Liberty Land Use Claims

Here is “Trespass or Vandalism or Protecting That Which is Holy? Religious Liberty Land-Use Claims,” published in the Columbia Law Review Online, by Edward K. Olds.

Recent Indian Law Scholarship Posted on SSRN

Here:

Native American Oral Evidence: Finding a New Hearsay Exception

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

Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples, and the Global Climate Crisis

Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 713, 2018
Number of pages: 26 Posted: 14 Feb 2019
Accepted Paper Series
Texas Tech University School of Law

Originalism and Indians

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

At the Intersection of Health and Justice: How the Health of American Indians and Alaska Natives Is Disproportionately Affected by Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

Belmont Law Review, Vol. VI, p. 41 (2018), Belmont University College of Law Research Paper No. 2019-3
Number of pages: 37 Posted: 04 Feb 2019
Accepted Paper Series
Georgetown University – School of Nursing & Health Studies, O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law and Prometheus Federal Services

The United States First Climate Relocation: Recognition, Relocation, and Indigenous Rights at the Isle de Jean Charles

Belmont Law Review, Vol. 6, p. 1 (2018), Belmont University College of Law Research Paper No. 2019-2
Number of pages: 40 Posted: 04 Feb 2019
Accepted Paper Series
Southern University Law Center

Re-Enchanting the World: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights as Essential Parts of a Holistic Human Rights Regime

UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 239, 2012, St. Thomas University School of Law (Florida) Research Paper No. 2018-01
Number of pages: 50 Posted: 31 Jan 2019
Accepted Paper Series
St. Thomas University School of Law

Virginia’s First Slaves: American Indians

Number of pages: 24 Posted: 14 Jan 2019
Working Paper Series
Arizona State University (ASU) – Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

Fletcher: “Law, Politics, and the Constitution”

Here, on SSRN.

The abstract:

The question whether Congress may create legal classifications based on Indian status under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is now reaching a critical point. Critics claim the Constitution allows no room to create race or ancestry based legal classifications. The critics are wrong. 

When it comes to Indian affairs, the Constitution is not colorblind. Textually, I argue, the Indian Commerce Clause and Indians Not Taxed Clause serve as express authorization for Congress to create legal classifications based on Indian race and ancestry, so long as those classifications are not arbitrary, as the Supreme Court stated a century ago in United States v. Sandoval and more recently in Morton v. Mancari. 

Should the Supreme Court reconsider those holdings, I suggest there are significant structural reasons why the judiciary should refrain from applying strict scrutiny review of Congressional legal classifications. The reasons are rooted in the political question doctrine and the institutional incapacity of the judiciary. Who is an Indian is a deeply fraught question to which judges have no special institutional capacity to assess. 

Neoshia Roemer on the Conflict between ICWA and the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children

MSU ILPC’s own Neoshia R. Roemer has published Finding Harmony or Swimming in the Void: The Unavoidable Conflict Between the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children and the Indian Child Welfare Act. [PDF]

Here is the abstract:

The Indian Child Welfare Act is a federal statute that applies to Indian children who are at the center of child welfare proceedings. While the Indian Child Welfare Act provides numerous protections to Indian children, parents, and tribes, many of these cases play out in state courts which are also required to apply their own requisite, relevant state laws. However, sometimes friction between the Indian Child Welfare Act and state-law provisions arise where state law provisions may seem in accord with the statute but  actually contradict it, such as in the case of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. This Article surveys the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children’s  provisions and discusses the friction that exists between it and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Ultimately, this Article argues that because the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children is a state administrative procedure that may alter that status of child welfare  proceedings, the Indian Child Welfare Act should preempt the Compact where it is  applicable.

New Issue of International Human Rights journal

Here:

iur_254

Features articles about Canadian Indian labor issues and a paper by Kaighn Smith and Joel Williams: “Native Americans, Tribal Sovereignty and Unions.”

Kevin Washburn on Federal “Deemed Approved” Gaming Compacts

Dean Kevin K. Washburn has posted “Agency Pragmatism in Addressing Law’s Failure: The Curious Case of Federal ‘Deemed Approvals’ of Tribal-State Gaming Compacts,” forthcoming in the Michigan Journal of Law Reform.

Here is the abstract:

In the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Congress imposed a decision-forcing mechanism on the Secretary of the Interior related to tribal-state compacts for Indian gaming. Congress authorized the Secretary to review such compacts and approve or disapprove each compact within forty-five days of submission. Under an unusual provision of law, however, if the Secretary fails to act within forty-five days, the compact is “deemed approved” by operation of law but only to the extent that it is lawful. In a curious development, this regime has been used in a different manner than Congress intended. Since the United States Supreme Court held part of IGRA unconstitutional in 1996, the Secretary declined to issue an affirmative approval or disapproval on more than seventy-five occasions—thus, allowing a compact to become approved by operation of law—but has simultaneously issued a letter setting forth legal objections to aspects of the compact. The Secretary’s creative response to a broken regulatory scheme appears to be unique, and it raises interesting questions about how the executive branch should behave in the face of legal uncertainty. It raises questions of administrative law, such as whether the Secretary’s non-action is reviewable as agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), whether the Secretary’s letter is entitled to deference, and if so, what level of deference. It also raises important questions about whether such action constitutes good policy. This Article examines some of those questions.

American Indian Law Journal Dec. 2018 Issue

Here:

Volume 7, Issue 1 (2018)

Articles

Note

Jessica Shoemaker on Reclaiming Modern Indigenous Land Tenures

Jessica Shoemaker has posted “Transforming Property: Reclaiming Modern Indigenous Land Tenures,” forthcoming in the California Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

This Article challenges existing narratives about the future of American Indian land tenure. The current highly-federalized system for reservation property is deeply problematic. In particular, the trust status of many reservation lands is expensive, bureaucratic, controlling, and linked to persistent poverty in many reservation communities. Yet, for complex reasons, trust property has proven largely immune from fundamental reform. Today, there seem to be two primary options floated for the future: a “do the best with what we have” approach that largely accepts core problems with trust, perhaps with some minor efficiency-oriented tinkering, for the sake of the benefits and security it does provide, or a return to old, already-failed reform strategies focused on simply “liberating” American Indian people with a forced transition to state-based fee-simple property. Both strategies respond, sometimes implicitly, to deep impulses about how property should work, especially in a market economy, but both also neglect sufficient respect for the true potential of more autonomous indigenous property regimes.

This Article engages property theory and related work on property system change to make the case for more radical institutional land reform as a realistic alternative choice, even in the complex and multi-layered environment of existing reservations. Property systems are full of dynamic, pluralistic potential, and property powerfully shapes the contours of both human communities and physical landscapes. This Article unearths this existing potential and charts a series of alternative steps, driven primarily by respect for tribal governments’ own actions and choices, to reclaim new, modern versions of indigenous land tenures within reservation spaces.

New Paper on Defending Morton v. Mancari

Andrew Huff and Tim Coulter have released “Defending Morton v. Mancari and the Constitutionality of Legislation Supporting Indians and Tribes”.

Quote from the article

Supporting and defending the Mancari decision and the rule that it stands for – that laws benefiting tribes are not unconstitutional racial classifications – is a very high priority, perhaps the most urgent and important Indian law issue of our time. This paper reviews the decision in Mancari and the law leading up to and following it. We then turn to a discussion of the present challenges to the Mancari rule. In Part V, we suggest possible ways to support the decision and its rationale, and we discuss some additional legal arguments and approaches for defending the constitutionality of legislation benefiting tribes.

PDF of paper below and paper is available for download here 

Mancari 11-19

 

Student Scholarship on the Allergan/Mohawk Case

Seth W. R. Brickey has published “Rent-A-Tribe: Using Tribal Immunity to Shield Patents from Administrative Review” in the Washington Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

 In 2017, Allergan Pharmaceuticals entered into an agreement with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (SRMT). Allergan agreed to assign several patents to SRMT and to pay an initial sum of $13.75 million and annual royalties of approximately $15 million. SRMT, in exchange, licensed the rights to use the patents back to Allergan and agreed not to  waive its tribal immunity in any administrative proceeding challenging the patents. Two outcomes were expected as a result of this Allergan-Mohawk agreement. First, Allergan would retain the rights to manufacture and market a highly profitable drug while insulating the underlying patents from an unforgiving administrative inter partes review (IPR). Second, SRMT would embark on a new business venture of collecting and relicensing patents from third parties, effectively “renting out” its sovereign immunity. The response from lawmakers, the judiciary, the executive branch, and the public at large was acrimonious. The agreement was branded in public forums as a “sham” and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held the patents assigned to SRMT were not shielded by tribal immunity. This Comment argues the Allergan-Mohawk agreement is a legally effective means of avoiding IPR. Absent an express waiver of tribal immunity by Congress or the tribe itself, a tribe may not be subject to a private claim. This rule extends to IPR proceedings which closely parallel private suits. Therefore, contracts like the Allergan-Mohawk agreement effectively shield patents from IPR.