Here’s the zoom link– http://link.usd.edu/NALSALawSymposium
Univ. So. Dakota NALSA Indian Law Symposium
Student Activities
U. Wisconsin Law School 2021 Coming Together of Peoples Conference — March 12, 2021
NNALSA: 2021 State of Indian Law at ABA-Accredited Law Schools Survey
Here.
American Indian Law Journal — Vol. 9, Issue 1
Here:
Current Issue: Volume 9, Issue 1 (2020)
Articles
ANOTHER INAPPROPRIATE F WORD: FIDUCIARY DOCTRINE AND THE CROWN-INDIGENOUS RELATIONSHIP IN CANADA
Bryan Birtles
“ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE”: NAVAJO NATION V. SAN JUAN COUNTY AND VOTER SUPPRESSION OF NATIVE AMERICANS
Carter Fox
REHABILITATIVE JUSTICE: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HEALING TO WELLNESS, OPIOID INTERVENTION, AND DRUG COURTS
Majidah M. Cochran and Christine L. Kettel
THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT’S APPLICATION TO CIVIL COMMITMENTS OF INDIAN CHILDREN IN STATE COURT PROCEEDING
Courtney Lewis
PEYOTE CRISIS CONFRONTING MODERN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES: THE DECLINING PEYOTE POPULATION AND A DEMAND FOR CONSERVATION
James D. Muneta
Administrative Law Review Podcast on the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe’s Federal Recognition Struggle
Here.
On today’s episode of A Hard Look, a Junior Staffer on ALR, Olivia Miller, joins host, Sarah Knarzer, and Professor Matthew Fletcher to discuss the tribal recognition process and the barriers it poses to tribes across the United States, and in particular the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe. Earlier this year, and in the middle of a surging coronavirus pandemic, the Bureau of Indian Affairs announced its intention to revoke the Mashpee Wampanoag’s land from its federal trust. This action is only a continuation of the Mashpee Wampanoag’s four hundred year struggle for tribal survival, dating back to the origins of the Thanksgiving myth.
Olivia and Professor Fletcher discuss Olivia’s comment, which she wrote as part of ALR’s comment writing process, to identify why the tribal recognition process is such a difficult, expensive, and frustrating administrative process for tribes who want and need to be federally recognized.
USD NALSA Native American Day Zoom Event
Stanford Law Review Online Student Essay Competition
The Stanford Law Review Online is excited to announce our student essay competition!
Two winners will each receive a $500 prize and publication of their up to 5,000 word essay. We encourage submissions from all current students (including LLMs) and recent graduates of any ABA-accredited American law school. We especially encourage submissions from those who have not yet published academic works.
Prompt:
Our theme this year is the ulterior or unintended effects of legal decisions. The law and those who practice it wield considerable power over the lives of the average person. It would be comforting to believe that those who make and interpret laws act with deliberate and benevolent purpose. But that is not always the case. Occasionally, perhaps even often, legal decisions have unintended or ulterior consequences. Sometimes those consequences can be humorous, such as a resident flaunting a Homeowner’s Association rule about paint color by plastering gaudy wallpaper on the outside of her home. Other times, those consequences can be much more tragic, as with exclusionary zoning laws that ensure an absence of affordable housing in affluent areas, exacerbating existing inequities and contributing to evictions and homelessness.
The Stanford Law Review invites current law students and recent alumni of any law school to discuss a legal instrument–including a contract clause, a court judgment, or a federal regulation–that had an unexpected or ulterior effect. We welcome submissions that apply this prompt to policing, the topic of SLR’s forthcoming symposium in coordination with Stanford BLSA.
Rules:
Our competition is open to current law students, LLMs, and graduates of the classes of 2020, 2019, and 2018 from ABA-accredited American law schools. Submissions are limited to one essay of up to 5,000 words (inclusive of footnotes) per person.
Submissions must be unpublished and exclusively submitted to this competition during the competition window, lasting from date of submission to date of final publication decision.
We will begin accepting pieces immediately and will close the submission window on January 4, 2021 at 11:59 PM. We aim to notify all applicants of publication decisions by January 18, 2021.
Please submit your essay as a Word document attachment in an email to Carly Grimes at cgrimes1@stanford.edu. This word document must be blinded. Your name must not appear in the document and you must follow instructions for removing identifying metadata available here: https://tinyurl.com/blindingessay
Direct any questions about the competition to Carly Grimes, cgrimes1@stanford.edu
American Indian Law Review New Issue — Vol. 44, No. 2
Here:
Current Issue: Volume 44, Number 2 (2020)
Articles
The Court of Indian Appeals: America’s Forgotten Federal Appellate Court
Chief Judge Gregory D. Smith and Bailee L. Plemmons
Tribal Remedies, Exhaustion, and State Courts
Pete Heidepriem
Comments
“Thus in the Beginning All the World Was America”: The Effects of Anti-Protest Legislation and an American Conquest Culture in Native Sacred Sites Cases
Elizabeth Hampton
The Cultural Property Conundrum: The Case for a Nationalistic Approach and Repatriation of the Moai to the Rapa Nui
Annie Rischard Davis
Note
Special Feature
Winner, Best Appellate Brief in the 2020 Native American Law Student Association Moot Court Competition
Emily Dennan and Emily McEvoy
Res Ipsa Loquitur Issues 1 and 2 [History of U.Mich. Student Ad Hoc Committee on Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation, 1996]
In 1996, Michigan law students formed an Ad Hoc Committee on Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation after the office door of Lance Jones, an African-American faculty member, was defaced with a racist slur. Shortly after that, the Res Gestae, a law student publication, published an attack on Catharine MacKinnon. The Ad Hoc Committee’s formation was followed by the publication of Res Ipsa Loquitur, a newsletter on race, gender, and sexual orientation. We’re making two issues of that newsletter available here.
Here:
Here is a twitter thread that is aggregating the issues and responses to Dean West’s initial statement and the responses from students and others (June 4-June 6)(includes documents).
New Student Scholarship on Jurisdiction and Gender-Based Violence against Native Women
Emily Mendoza has published “Jurisdictional Transparency and Native American Women” in the California Law Review Online.
Here is the abstract:
While lawmakers have long known that Native American women experience gender-based violence at higher rates than any other population, lawmakers historically have addressed these harms by implementing jurisdictional changes: removing tribal jurisdiction entirely, limiting tribal jurisdiction, or returning jurisdiction to tribes in a piecemeal fashion. The result is a “jurisdictional maze” that law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and courts are unable to successfully administer to bring perpetrators to justice. This Article is the first to identify what I call “jurisdictional transparency”—or clear, easily ascertainable rules governing courts’ jurisdiction—as a core value of the American legal system and will argue that a lack of jurisdictional transparency over criminal prosecutions in Indian country contributes to the excessive rates of domestic violence, sexual assault, and rape against Native American women. Because arguments for or against sovereignty are divisive and often put a swift end to productive dialogue, this has often led to the layering of more jurisdictional rules on top of the current system. Jurisdictional transparency, on the other hand, advocates an approach that is both more fundamental and more attainable: allocating criminal jurisdiction in Indian country in a way that can be easily determined at the outset of a case.
The Article begins by examining jurisdictional rules in other contexts while highlighting the federal courts’ continuous demand for clear jurisdictional rules in the interest of judicial efficiency and public access to the courts. With this backdrop, the Article then illuminates the discrepancy between such transparency demands and the opaque jurisdictional rules in Indian Country, using key case examples to demonstrate the system’s failures. Finally, the Article proposes a solution that is reflected in numerous facets of the law: jurisdictional transparency. Such a solution has a procedural guise capable of penetrating a polarized political climate while lifting the opacity that has prevented thousands of Native American women from accessing justice.
