Here, from the Maryland Journal of International Law:
Paths in the Wilderness?: The Politics and Practices of Hopi Religious Freedom in Hopitutskwa
Justin B. Richland
Here, from the Maryland Journal of International Law:
Paths in the Wilderness?: The Politics and Practices of Hopi Religious Freedom in Hopitutskwa
Justin B. Richland
Here:
Letter from the Editor
Anter, Simone
“Water is Life” Editoon
Two Bulls, Marty Sr.
Oceti Sakowin Camp
Hewitt, Cathy
Gallery I
Wilson, Rob
Environmentalism and Human Rights Legal Framework: The Continued Frontier of Indigenous Resistance
Thompson, Geneva E. B.
Gallery II
Wilson, Rob
White Man’s Elixir
Kuauhtzin, Tekpatl Tonalyohlotl
Here:
Vol. 41, No. 1 (2016-2017)
Click any link to view in PDF format
Article
Comments
Defending the Cobell Buy-Back Program – Rebekah Martin
Raising Capital in Indian Country – Evan Way
Note
Christman v. Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde: A Chapter in the Disenrollment Epidemic – Tabitha Minke
The Dynamic Legal Environment of Daily Fantasy Sports – Elizabeth Lohah Homer
Here:
Indian Law Commentary Series
Indian Law Commentary Series
Michael Blumm has published “Indian Treaty Fishing Rights and the Environment: Affirming the Right to Habitat Protection and Restoration” in the Washington Law Review.
Here:



Michelle Bryan has posted “Valuing Tribal Sacred Water within Prior Appropriation,” published in the Natural Resources Journal. Here is an excerpt from the abstract:
Much has been written in the area of waters to support fishing rights under treaty. This article does not address these rights, but rather focuses on the sacred nature of the water resource itself. While the two may be complementary, a sacred water use may also exist separate from a recognized treaty fishing right. There are other places where these values should further be reflected, such as federal lands management plans, local land development codes, and environmental assessment review. This piece, however, will focus on the notable absence of sacred value within prior appropriation. This shift is important not only for the legal protections it might afford, but just as importantly as a signal that our water laws can stretch to protect the many interests of our time.
Richard W. Hughes has published “Pueblo Indian Water Rights: Charting the Unknown” in the Natural Resources Journal, Winter 2017.
Here is the abstract:
This article examines the so-far-unsuccessful efforts to judicially define and quantify the water rights appurtenant to the core land holdings of the 19 New Mexico Pueblos, many of whose lands straddle the Rio Grande. It explains that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has squarely held that Pueblo water rights are governed by federal, not state law, and are prior to those of any non-Indian appropriator, but also that the Tenth Circuit acknowledged that it could not say how those rights should be characterized. Part I of the article examines the course of the cases that have sought to achieve this elusive goal. Of the first six cases, filed half a century ago, three ended in negotiated settlements and none of them has yielded a definitive ruling on the nature or measure of Pueblo rights. Of the three cases filed since then, only one is in active litigation on the Pueblo rights issue, but that case may finally lead to a substantive ruling. Part II discusses the few rulings that have been issued in these cases so far relative to Pueblo water rights, and examines the distinctive nature of the issues that are presented by the unique circumstances of the Pueblos’ history and landholdings. The article notes that the ultimate determination of the nature and measure of Pueblo rights could have dramatic consequences for any effort to adjudicate rights on the mainstem of the Upper and Middle Rio Grande.
If you sat in on a class I taught last week, you’d know this is my new favorite article:
Here.
This paper turns attention away from discussions of the race and economic poverty of the families most affected by the system, and instead looks at the impact of the race and privilege of these volunteer child advocates on child welfare decision-making
Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) are volunteers appointed by the court in child welfare cases to argue for a child’s best interests. There are many issues with this system, and I have been in many loud arguments about it (some of you have witnessed them). This article identifies many of those concerns and grounds them in the history of state child welfare systems–including how those systems affect Indian children.
As a side note, I know people personally who have worked hard to develop Tribal CASA programs. Those programs are particularly sensitive to ensuring their volunteers understand the culture of the tribe and their children, which counters the issues inherent in state systems. This article is specifically discussing the issue of CASAs in state systems.
You must be logged in to post a comment.