Scholarship

New Scholarship on Tribal Court Jurisdiction in Alaska

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Alaska Law Review has published “Advancing Tribal Court Jurisdiction in Alaska.”

Here is the abstract:

Extensive case law already exists in Alaska on the jurisdiction of tribal courts over domestic relations cases, with one of the seminal cases—John v. Baker—establishing that Alaska tribes have jurisdiction even in the absence of Indian country. A common assumption, though, is that Alaska tribes do not have jurisdiction over criminal offenses. This Article argues that both under the logic of John v. Baker and the development of Indian law in the Lower 48, Alaska tribes already possess inherent jurisdiction over criminal offenses within their Native villages. With the gamut of social challenges facing Alaska Natives in rural Alaska, tribes need to be empowered to exercise this jurisdiction.

Ann Tweedy on Tribal Gun Regulation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ann Tweedy has published “Indian Tribes and Gun Regulation: Should Tribes Exercise Their Sovereign Rights to Enact Gun Bans or Stand-Your-Ground Laws?” in the Albany Law Review.

New Scholarship on Tribal Disenrollments

Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

Arizona Law Review announces its publication of Galanda and Dreveskracht’s piece entitled Curing the Tribal Disenrollment Epidemic: In Search of a Remedy, which has been described as “a must read for all of Indian country” by Indian law scholar Robert A. Williams, Jr. Please see the press release for additional information.

New Scholarship on Tribal Emergency Declarations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Gregory Sunshine and Aila Hoss have posted “Emergency Declarations and Tribes,” forthcoming in the Michigan State University International Law Review.

An excerpt:

Tribes are sovereign nations that maintain a government-to-government relationship with the Unites States. As sovereign entities, tribes have inherent authority to protect the public health and welfare of their citizens. Tribes thus have the authority to undertake measures to prepare and manage public health emergencies in the manner most appropriate for their communities. Coupled with existing federal statutes, there are multiple mechanisms for tribes, either directly or through a state or the US federal government, to declare an emergency or receive the benefits of a federal declaration. This article summarizes several types of emergency declarations, including tribal declarations, Stafford Act declarations, and federal public health emergency declarations, and their implications for tribes.

 

New Student Scholarship on the Environmental Impact of Federal Recognition of American Indian Nations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review has published “People of the Outside: The Environmental Impact of Federal Recognition of American Indian Nations” (PDF).

Here is the abstract:

American Indians interact with land and the environment in a manner that is distinct from non-native peoples. They view natural resources as an integral part of their way of life. As a result, Indian tribes desire to implement policies and programs that will protect their natural resources. In order to receive federal assistance for these policies and programs, however, a tribe must be federally recognized. The Duwamish tribe, which resides near Seattle, Washington, is not a federally recognized tribe. Despite years of fighting for recognition, the Duwamish cannot take part in the improvement of their tribal region’s air and water quality. Alternatively, the Forest County Potawatomi Community is federally recognized. The tribe has utilized its federal status to redesignate its reservation lands under the Clean Air Act, which brings stricter environmental regulations on and around the reservation. As long as the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ criteria for federal recognition continue to be arbitrarily and haphazardly enforced, unrecognized tribes like the Duwamish will continue to lack the power to address the environmental issues in their tribal region, in contravention of their fundamental beliefs and way of life.

New Scholarship on American Indian Probate Reform Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

David Armstrong has published “Estate Planning for American Indians: AIPRA for the General Practitioner” (PDF) in the Denver University Law Review Online.

An excerpt:

Indian law is sometimes viewed as niche practice area limited to those who work directly with tribes or those who work on or near a reservation.  Despite this perception the general practitioner regardless of where they work should have passing familiarity with laws which affect tribal members who often reside outside of reservations.  Two primary examples of this are the Indian Child Welfare Act and the American Indian Probate Reform Act (AIPRA).  While the former is a subject worthy of an extended discussion this article will focus exclusively on AIPRA and related acts which effect the estate plans of American Indians wherever they live.

New Student Scholarship on Medicaid and Indian Tribes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Medicaid: Can Federal Responsibilities, State Authorities, and Tribal Sovereignty be Reconciled?,” published in the Wyoming Law Review.

An excerpt:

The decisions made by state governments related to Medicaid funding of American Indian and Alaska Native health care is not consistent with either the federal responsibility or the unique government-to-government relationship the Tribes have with the federal government. The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing optional Medicaid expansion for states further emphasizes how state authority in Medicaid implementation decisions impacts federally funded care delivered to American Indians and Alaska Natives. American Indians and Alaska Natives are disproportionally impacted in states not expanding Medicaid.

New Book — Jill Doerfler’s “Those Who Belong”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Jill Doerfler has published “Those Who Belong: Identity, Family, Blood, and Citizenship among the White Earth Anishinaabeg.”

Those Who Belong

Michigan State University Press did the honors.

This is very exciting! An important moment in the study of Anishinaabe law and modern tribal membership.

UCLA School of Law Symposium — The Next Frontier in Federal Indian Law:  Building on the Foundational Work of Carole E. Goldberg

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Save the Date!

February 5, 2016

This Symposium will focus on cutting edge issues in federal Indian law and, in so doing, celebrate the 40+ year career of Jonathon D. Varat Professor of Law Carole E. Goldberg.   Federal Indian law, broadly defined, governs the relationship between the federal government and the more than 566 Indian nations within the United States, as well as implicating states’ rights and raising questions that bear on tribal law and issues of self-determination.  Drawing on the richness and breadth of the field, the Symposium will cover topics related to constitutional law (such as federalism, sovereignty, and equal protection), civil procedure (such as conflict of laws, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue), criminal law (including complex jurisdictional issues over prosecution), and other cutting edge issues (such as gaming, taxation, protection of natural resources, and international human rights law).  In a lively, critical event, we will engage the work of Professor Goldberg, but then use her scholarship as a springboard to further explore the vigorous debate around these timely issues.

Contact Professor Angela R. Riley riley@law.ucla.edu for more details.

Obergefell Oral Arguments and Related News

Ann Tweedy

SCOTUS Blog has posted a great round-up of the commentary so far on the oral arguments in Obergefell vs. Hodges, heard Tuesday morning. Obergefell is the same-sex marriage case currently before the Supreme Court, in which the Court is slated to decide both whether states may prohibit same-sex couples from marrying and whether they may refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The arguments appear to have been a mixed bag, with many inferring that Justice Kennedy, who will almost certainly be the swing vote, is still deciding. I found this piece on the oral arguments by Lyle Denniston helpful and interesting. As for what a pro-same-sex marriage decision from the Court would mean for tribes, the short answer is that it wouldn’t be binding but most likely would be seen as strong persuasive authority in most tribal courts. Here’s a short article by Anthony Broadman on that issue (which also quotes my forthcoming law review article). And, somewhat relatedly, Indian Country Today has just published an article on the journeys of the Suquamish and Little Traverse Tribes toward marriage equality.