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.
tribal constitutions
Recent Native America Calling Shows on Tribal Member Disenrollments, Blood Quantum, and Banishment
Stephen Cornell on Indigenous Self-Government
Stephen Cornell has published “‘Wolves Have A Constitution:’ Continuities in Indigenous Self-Government” (PDF).
The abstract:
This article is about constitutionalism as an Indigenous tradition. The political idea of constitutionalism is the idea that the process of governing is itself governed by a set of foundational laws or rules. There is ample evidence that Indigenous nations in North America—and in Australia and New Zealand as well—were in this sense constitutionalists. Customary law, cultural norms, and shared protocols provided well understood guidelines for key aspects of governance by shaping both personal and collective action, the behavior of leaders, decision-making, dispute resolution, and relationships with the human, material, and spirit worlds. Today, many of these nations have governing systems imposed by outsiders. As they move to change these systems, they also are reclaiming their own constitutional traditions.
Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Lee v. Cleve Her Many Horses
Tenth Circuit Finds Federal Question in Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham, Orders Tribal Court Exhaustion
Here is the opinion in Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham. An excerpt:
The Thlopthlocco Tribal Town is a federally recognized Indian tribe in Oklahoma. An election dispute arose about which individuals were properly elected or appointed to govern the Thlopthlocco people. Seeking to resolve that dispute, the Tribal Town filed suit in the tribal court of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and, accordingly, voluntarily submitted to that court’s jurisdiction.
The Tribal Town subsequently concluded it did not want to maintain its suit in tribal court and dismissed its claims. But the defendant in that suit had, by that time, filed cross-claims. Arguing that the Tribal Town’s sovereign immunity waiver did not cover proceedings on the cross-claims, the Tribal Town attempted to escape Muscogee court jurisdiction, but, in various decisions, several judges and justices of the Muscogee courts held that they may exercise jurisdiction over the Tribal Town without its consent.
The Tribal Town then filed a federal action in the Northern District of Oklahoma against those Muscogee judicial officers, seeking to enjoin the Muscogee courts’ exercise of jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the case, finding that the federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity, the Tribal Town had failed to join indispensable parties, and the Tribal Town had failed to exhaust its remedies in tribal court. We conclude, however, that the Tribal Town has presented a federal question and that the other claims do not require dismissal. But we agree the Tribal Town should exhaust its remedies in tribal court while its federal court action is abated.
Here are the briefs:
Lower court materials here.
New Scholarship from Circe Strum on the Cherokee Freedmen
Here.
Abstract:
Despite a treaty in 1866 between the Cherokee Nation and the federal government granting them full tribal citizenship, Cherokee Freedmen—the descendants of African American slaves to the Cherokee, as well as of children born from unions between African Americans and Cherokee tribal members—continue to be one of the most marginalized communities within Indian Country. Any time Freedmen have sought the full rights and benefits given other Cherokee citizens, they have encountered intense opposition, including a 2007 vote that effectively ousted them from the tribe. The debates surrounding this recent decision provide an excellent case study for exploring the intersections of race and sovereignty. In this article, I use the most recent Cherokee Freedmen controversy to examine how racial discourse both empowers and diminishes tribal sovereignty, and what happens in settler-colonial contexts when the exercise of tribal rights comes into conflict with civil rights. I also explore how settler colonialism as an analytic can obscure the racialized power dynamics that undermine Freedmen claims to an indigenous identity and tribal citizenship.
Information Request on Tribal Gun Laws
I’m beginning research on tribal gun laws. If you would like to help, please email any information you have on tribal laws regulating guns or protecting gun rights, such as a copy of the law or information on legislative history, to me at tribalgunrights@comcast.net. I’m particularly interested in efforts to curb gun violence through regulation, especially laws enacted in response to mass shootings, and also in whether any tribes have stand-your-ground laws. But all tribal laws pertaining to guns are of interest to me. You can find my earlier work on tribes and the Second Amendment here.
Eighth Circuit Briefs in Lee v. Cleve Her Many Horses (Challenge to Oglala Sioux Tribal Govt.)
Nooksack Tribal Court Dismisses St. Germain v. Kelly
Nooksack Tribal Dismisses Adams v. Kelly II
Here:
Adams v Kelly II Plaintiffs’ Amended Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss
Adams v Kelly II Amended Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss
Adams v Kelly II Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Adams v Kelly II Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.