Angela Riley on Indigenous Cultural Property Law

Angela R. Riley has published “The Ascension of Indigenous Cultural Property Law” in the Michigan Law Review.

Prof. Riley presenting the paper last fall at ASU.

Here is the abstract:

Indigenous Peoples across the world are calling on nation-states to “decolonize” laws, structures, and institutions that negatively impact them. Though the claims are broad based, there is a growing global emphasis on issues pertaining to Indigenous Peoples’ cultural property and the harms of cultural appropriation, with calls for redress increasingly framed in the language of human rights. Over the last decade, Native people have actively fought to defend their cultural property. The Navajo Nation sued Urban Outfitters to stop the sale of “Navajo panties,” the Quileute Tribe sought to enjoin Nordstrom’s marketing of “Quileute Chokers,” and the descendants of Tasunke Witko battled to end production of “Crazy Horse Malt Liquor.” And today, Indigenous Peoples are fighting to preserve sacred ceremonies and religious practices at places like Standing Rock, Oak Flat, and Bear’s Ears. Though the claims range from “lands to brands,” these conflicts are connected by a common thread: they are all contemporary examples of Indigenous Peoples’ efforts to protect their cultural property. As issues surrounding cultural property play out on the global stage, there is a parallel movement underway within Indigenous communities themselves. More than fifteen years ago, in 2005, I conducted a comprehensive study of tribal law to understand what American Indian tribes were doing to protect their own cultural property within tribal legal systems. Since my original study, the ground around issues of cultural preservation and Indigenous rights—including the 2007 adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, among others— have reignited interest in Indigenous Peoples’ own laws. Inspired by a convergence of global events impacting cultural rights, in 2020 and 2021, I set out to update my survey results and analyze the tribal cultural preservation systems and tribal laws of all 574 federally recognized American Indian tribes and Alaskan Native Villages in the United States. This Article reports those findings, situating the results in a human rights framework and leading to a core, central thesis: the data reveal a striking increase in the development of tribal cultural property laws, as Indian tribes seek to advance human and cultural rights in innovative and inspired ways. Indeed, in this Article, I contend we are witnessing a new jurisgenerative moment today in the cultural property arena, with tribal law already influencing decisionmakers at multiple ‘sites’—international, national, and subnational—in real time, with great potential for the future. To further demonstrate this phenomenon, I highlight the case study of the recent agreement to repatriate the Maaso Kova, a ceremonial deer head, from Sweden to the Yaqui peoples, and I also introduce several other examples where the seeds have been planted for the growth of the next jurisgenerative moment in Indigenous cultural property rights.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!!

Utah Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Ute Banishment Case

Here are the new materials in Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Unitah and Ouray Indian Reservation (D. Utah), formerly Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribal Court of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation:

Tenth Circuit materials here. Earlier materials in the district court here.

Fletcher Reflections on Professionalism in Tribal Jurisdictions

Fletcher has posted “Reflections on Professionalism in Tribal Jurisdictions,” a short paper prepared for a special issue of the Michigan Bar Journal.

The abstract:

In this article, I will canvass several themes of professionalism in tribal practice, drawing my tribal law experience. Many lawyers to undervalue — even disrespect — tribal governance. This lack of professionalism has significant costs to tribal governments, tribal business, and their business partners.

Another irrelevant image.

Cert Petition in Big Horn County Electric Cooperative Inc. v. Big Man

Here:

Question presented:

Whether an Indian tribal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a tribally created claim as an “other means” of regulating a nonmember federally funded and federally regulated electric cooperative tasked with providing electrical service to all customers within its service territory, including tribal members on Indian reservations?

Lower court materials here.

Update:

New York Federal Court Orders Tribal Exhaustion in Smoke Shop Dispute at Cayuga

Here are the materials in Cayuga Nation v. Parker (N.D. N.Y.):

Reprinted in Akwesasne Notes, 1970

1 Complaint

2-3 Motion for Injunction

30 Parker Opposition

30-4 Legal Opinion

31 Meyer Opposition

34-1 Parker Motion to Dismiss

35-1 Meyer Motion to Dismiss

37 Reply in Support of 2

40 Opposition to Motions to Dismiss

44 Meyer Reply

45 Parker Reply

45-2 Cayuga Civil Court Order

47-1 Cayuga Civil Court Amended Complaint

White Earth Ojibwe Appellate Court Dismissed Manoomin Suit against Minnesota DNR

Here is the order in Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources v. Manoomin dated March 10, 2022:

Prior post here.

California Federal Court Confirms Tribal Jurisdiction over Nonmember Business

Here are the materials in Rincon Mushroom Corporation of America v. Mazzetti (S.D. Cal.):

166 Rincon Mushroom MSJ

167-1 Tribe MSJ

171 Rincon Mushroom Reply

174 Tribe Reply

Prior post here.