Here is the opinion in In re the Disenrollment Appeal of Selvidge-Brownfield:
tribal membership
Quinault Tribal Court Orders in Matter Involving Attempted Disenrollment of Two Tribal Members
Here are the materials in Tarabochia v. Quinault Indian Nation:
CV23-015CorrectedJudgmentOrderDefendants
CV23-015CorrectedPlaintiffJudgment
CV23-015CorrectedSummaryJudgmentOrder
CV23-015JudgmentAwardingEquitableRelief

Quinault Disenrollments Vacated
Here is the order in Tarabochia v. Quinault Indian Nation:

Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court Holds Creek Freedmen & Descendants Entitled to Same Rights as Other Creek Citizens
California Federal Court Rejects Chukchansi Disenrollees’ Effort to Reopen Tillie Hardwick Case
Aaron Mills on Anishinaabe Law and Kinship
Aaron Mills has published “First Nations’ Citizenship and Kinship Compared: Belonging’s Stake in Legality” in the American Journal of Comparative Law.
Here is the abstract:
Many First Nation individuals appear to accept that debates about belonging to First Nations political community are properly framed as debates about citizenship. Interlocutors frequently identify the ongoing significance of kinship, but fold it into their conception of citizenship. This Article resists citizenship’s orthodoxy. Kinship is not a unique feature of First Nations citizenship, but rather is its own model of belonging to a political community: a model internal to First Nations law, understood on its own terms. There are, then, two models of belonging to First Nations political community, citizenship and kinship, within and over which debates about belonging play out.
For First Nations political communities using their own systems of law, kinship is a source of fundamental legal interests, just as citizenship is a source of fundamental rights and freedoms in modern liberal democracies. However, comparativists, legal theorists, and political theorists have struggled to appreciate this reality because internal (or settler) colonialism disconnects kinship from legality conceptually and thus institutionally. Those connections must be reestablished.
To that end, this Article shows that, functionally, kinship is a full answer to citizenship. The argument is made in two interwoven parts, each of which turns on the picture of kinship as a structural feature of First Nations law, understood on its own terms. First, kinship is citizenship’s political equal insofar as it offers a justificatory account of belonging to a political community; second, kinship is citizenship’s legal equal insofar as it, too, serves as a foundation for fundamental legal interests. The gravamen of this Article is, thus, twofold. First, one is not hearing what First Nations law says about belonging if one is only willing or able to listen in the language of citizenship. Second, the stakes in one’s choice of model are significant: citizenship and kinship structure legality in fundamentally different ways.

Fletcher’s “Nanaboozhoo and Derrick Bell for a Walk”
Here is “Nanaboozhoo and Derrick Bell Go for a Walk,” published in the B.U. Law Review Online, now posted on SSRN.

Boston U. Law Review Symposium on Carla Pratt’s “Indianness as Property”
Carla D. Pratt has published “Indianness as Property” in the B.U. Law Review.
Abstract:
This Article expands upon the seminal work by Cheryl Harris entitled Whiteness as Property by exploring the intersection of race and property through Indianness. Indianness has been constructed as a form of property
conferring rights and privileges to its holders which this Article examines through the inertial relationship between race and legal status. Tracing the historical evolution of Indianness from the slavery era to the modern era demonstrates the complex relationship between tribal sovereignty, citizenship and Indian identity. This legal history contextualizes contemporary disputes over who can enjoy tribal citizenship and be Indian. This Article advocates for a reevaluation of Indianness that it is not grounded in notions of race and property, but rather sovereignty, history and culture, asserting that broadening the conception of Indianness will strengthen tribal sovereignty.
There are three responses (one forthcoming) to this paper:
Rejecting the Racialization of Indianness
Andrea J. Martin
Nanaboozhoo and Derrick Bell Go for a Walk
Matthew L.M. Fletcher

New Student Scholarship on Tribal Disenrollments
John K. Crawford (Forest County Potawatomi) has published “Disenrollment as Citizenship Revocation: Promoting Tribal Sovereignty by Embracing International Norms” in the Yale Law Journal.
Here is the abstract:
This Note argues that Indian tribes can best address disenrollment by viewing the problem through the lens of international norms regarding citizenship revocation. Tribal officials and members, advocates and journalists, and scholars and practitioners of federal Indian law typically understand disenrollment, which is when a tribe severs its governmental relationship with certain members, as a practice unique to Indian Country. However, while tribes’ unique legal status facilitates disenrollment, this practice can nevertheless be understood as a form of citizenship revocation, which is when a state deprives certain persons of their previously held citizenship. By understanding disenrollment as citizenship revocation, tribes can draw from a wide body of existing literature about states’ citizenship-revocation regimes when considering limitations on their power to disenroll. If tribes choose to address disenrollment by embracing international norms regarding citizenship revocation, they will not simply invoke tribal sovereignty, as sometimes occurs under the current status quo, but instead promote it by advancing good governance and aligning their sovereignty with state sovereignty.




You must be logged in to post a comment.