Fletcher on the Dark Matter of Federal Indian Law

Please check out “The Dark Matter of Federal Indian Law: The Duty of Protection,” a draft of which is now available on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

The United States and every federally recognized tribal nation originally entered into a sovereign-to-sovereign relationship highlighted by the duty of protection, a doctrine under international customary law in which a larger, stronger sovereign agrees to “protect” the small, weaker sovereign. The larger sovereign agrees to this duty of protection, in the American case anyway, in exchange for massive, occasionally unquantifiable amounts of land and resources, as well as the power to control the external sovereign relations of the protected sovereign. The smaller sovereigns, in this case, tribal nations, typically received protected reservation lands, hunting and fishing rights, small cash infusions, and the vague promise of protection.
What tribal nations have received so far in exchange for their lands and resources and sovereignty is a pittance compared to the value of that consideration. Justice Gorsuch noted in a recent case that tribal nations in Washington gave up millions of acres in exchange for “promises.” Those promises must mean something.
I call those promises the dark matter of federal Indian law.
The duty of protection owed by the United States to tribal nations is much like dark matter. The duty of protection was left undefined in Indian treaties. Yes, the treaties and other agreements that established a sovereign-to-sovereign relationship did provide for specific details about that relationship, most famously hunting and fishing rights or criminal jurisdiction. But most treaties and agreements are sparse, leaving open most of the details about that relationship. That’s the dark matter of Indian law.
This essay argues that the duty of protection between tribal nations and the federal government is law and that the judiciary has an obligation to enforce aspects of the duty of protection as understood by both tribal nations and Congress. The essay begins by describing the duty of protection as understood by tribal nations at the time of the origination of the duty and now. The essay then turns to how Congress and the Department of the Interior understands the duty of protection, at least since the start of the tribal self-determination era in the 1970s, and how the Department of Justice often undermines that understanding. Then, the essay explains that the dark matter of federal Indian law is the duty of protection, that the federal obligations to tribal nations and individual Indians is real, and that the duty of protection is enforceable. Finally, the essay shows how the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a useful tool judges can use in adjudicating the scope of the unstated parts of the duty of protection.
This essay is an invited submission to the Maine Law Review Indian law symposium.

This paper was also the subject of the 2022 Rennard Strickland lecture at the University of Oregon Law School:

SCTOUS Grants United States and Arizona Petitions in Navajo Water Case

Here was yesterday’s order.

Prior post here.

Thinking if SCOTUS had some good frybread, they’d let Indian country have the nice things we deserve, like an enforceable duty of protection.

Fort Belknap Sues United States over Law Enforcement Funding

Here is the complaint in Fort Belknap Indian Community v. United States (D. Mont.):

Update (6/1/25):

Interior Prevails in Most Trust Breach Claims Brought by MHA Nation Oil and Gas Lessors

Here are the materials in Birdbear v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

147 Third Amended Complaint

177 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary J

180 Federal Cross-Motion

187 Plaintiffs Reply

191 Federal Reply

207 CFC Opinion

D.C. Circuit Rejects Federal Effort to Dismiss Tanana Chiefs’ Contract Breach Claim Against I.H.S.

Here are the materials in Tanana Chiefs Conference v. Beccera (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

15-1 Motion to Dismiss

17 Response

19 Reply

20 DCT Order

South Dakota Federal Court Dismisses Lower Brule Tribal School Overspending Case

Here are the materials in Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Haaland (D.S.D.):

1 Complaint

10 Motion to Dismiss

17 Opposition

23 Reply

27 DCT Order

I Don’t Know Why Indian Country Doesn’t Demand that Congress Pass the RESPECT Act because This Bullshit’s Gonna Keep Happening Until Then [Badger Two-Medicine]

Please see the strongly worded, if misguided, commentary from Judge Leon in Solonex v. Haaland, who sees 40 years of delay on a drilling permit and calls it “Kafkaesque.” It’s hard to disagree with that sentiment — though I wish the court were more understanding that tribal and Indian efforts to stop the drilling proposal began when there were virtually no legal protections for tribes and Native citizens to utilize. It’s time to acknowledge that this drilling should never have been approved over tribal and Indian objections and the RESPECT Act takes us a long way down the road to preventing this B.S. from happening over and over again.

Here is the order in Solonex LLC v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

Prior post on the D.C. Circuit decision from which this case is on remand here.

Briefs:

Klamath and Hoopa Tribes Prevail in Ninth Circuit Klamath River Water Distribution Challenge

Here is the opinion in Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation.

Briefs:

Klamath irrigation Opening Brief

Shasta View Opening Brief

Hoopa Answer Brief

Klamath Answer Brief

Federal Answer Brief

Shasta View Reply

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Cherokee Trust Breach Suit Update

Here are the materials so far in Cherokee Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

34-1 Motion to Dismiss

39 Opposition

41 Reply

42 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

54-1 Federal Motion to Dismiss

55-1 Federal Motion for Protective Order

60 Cherokee Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

85 DCT Order Re Protective Order

88-1 Cherokee Motion for Summary J

96-1 Federal Cross-Motion

97 Federal Cross-Motion

98 Cherokee Motion for Summary J

99 Cherokee Reply in Support of MSJ

D.C. Federal Court Dismisses All Claims Except APA Claim by Ute Tribe to Uncompahgre Reservation

Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. United States (D. Utah):

1 Complaint

35 US Motion to Dismiss

46 Opposition

48 Reply

76 DCT Order

80 US Motion for Partial Reconsideration

87 Opposition

89 Reply

90 DCT Order Granting Reconsideration