Intertribal organizations are a powerful and unheralded element behind recent gains in Indigenous wildlife sovereignty. Key to winning and implementing judicial and political victories, they have also helped tribal nations become powerful voices in wildlife and habitat conservation. Through case studies of these organizations and their impact, this Article shows why intertribal wildlife organizations are necessary and influential, and how the intertribal form reflects a distinct relational approach to wildlife governance. As the first article focused on the intertribal form, moreover, the Article also identifies an unexamined actor in tribal sovereignty and legal change.
Anthropogenic climate change is increasingly causing disruptions to ecological communities upon which Natives have relied for millennia, raising existential threats not only to ecosystems but to Native communities. Yet no analysis has carefully explored how climate change is affecting the governance of tribal ecological lands. This Article closes this scholarly and policy gap, examining the current legal adaptive capacity to manage the effects of ecological change on tribal lands.
The Article first considers interventions to date, finding them to be lacking in even assessing—let alone addressing—climate risks to tribal ecosystem governance. It then carefully explores how climate change raises distinctive risks and advantages to tribal governance as compared to federal and state approaches. Relying in part on the review of publicly available tribal plans, the paper details how tribal adaptation planning to date has fared.
In particular, the Article delves into the substantive, procedural, and structural aspects of tribal governance, focusing on climate change and ecological adaptation. Substantively, tribal governance often tends to be considerably less wedded to conservation goals and strategies that rely on “natural” preservation, and many tribes focus less on maximizing yield in favor of more flexible objectives that may be more congruent with adaptation. Procedurally, like other authorities, many tribal governments could better integrate adaptive management and meaningful public participation into adaptation processes, yet some tribes serve as exemplars for doing so (as well as for integrating traditional ecological knowledge with Western science). Structurally, tribal ecological land governance should continue to tap the advantages of decentralized tribal authority but complementing it through more robust (1) federal roles in funding and information dissemination, and (2) intergovernmental coordination, assuming other governments will respect tribal sovereignty. The Article concludes by identifying areas in which tribal management might serve as valuable exemplars for adaptation governance more generally, as well as areas for which additional work would be helpful.
Twenty years ago the Supreme Court misread its precedents and took a short cut to do what was “simpler” instead of what was right. It determined that tribal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction without examining the origins of tribal judicial power. Writing for the majority in Nevada v. Hicks, Justice Scalia concluded that in order to find that tribal courts were able to interpret federal law the Court would have to “attribute to tribal courts jurisdiction that is not apparent.” But power often exists even if it is not apparent at first glance. Unwilling to do even a cursory examination to determine whether tribal courts might nonetheless possess general jurisdiction, the Court decided that it would be “surely [ ] simpler… to conclude that tribal courts cannot entertain” claims arising under federal law. This article objects to the legal principle that tribes cannot exercise their inherent sovereign powers because it would “simpler” for the Supreme Court.
In Hicks, the Court abdicated its responsibility by not engaging in an analysis of the origins of the judicial power exercised by tribal courts. Under the principles of inherent sovereignty it is the tribal sovereign and not the Supreme Court that controls the jurisdiction of tribal courts. If a tribal government vests in its judicial department the authority to interpret federal law, then the tribal court maintains that power until withdrawn by the tribal sovereign. This article further argues that the Court in Hicks exceeded its Article III exercise of the judicial power to attempt to limit – against the will of the tribal sovereign – the general jurisdiction of tribal courts. It concludes by encouraging tribal governments to decide for themselves whether they want their courts to interpret federal law. If the tribal sovereign assigns that power to its courts, then tribal courts should begin affirmatively exercising general jurisdiction despite the Hicks precedent.
Anthony Hernandez has published “Tribal Trademark Law” in the Stanford Law Review. Here is the abstract:
Native American tribes are increasingly creating their own intellectual and cultural property statutes. Of all the new legislation, tribal trademark law in particular is an engaging yet understudied area. By studying tribal trademark law, it becomes possible to evaluate the nature and scope of tribal sovereignty. And studying tribal trademark law provides an opportunity to consider how federal trademark law might incorporate tribal innovations. Situated at the intersection of tribal law, intellectual property, and tribal sovereignty, this Note asks whether the federal government is prepared to incorporate and recognize tribal trademark law in the same way that it has done for states’ laws.
Figuring out where the California Court of Appeal courts are on the initial inquiry duty when a child is removed from their home is about as easy as detangling a ball of Christmas lights. The Samantha F. case does a nice job of going through where everything is, and what courts have held. This issue is fairly specific to California, which has certain ICWA inquiry requirements in state law and court rules for the removal of any child from their home. The question at issue seems particularly frustrating, because certain California courts have held there is no duty for contacting a child’s extended family re. tribal citizenship if the child was removed from the home with a warrant. However, there is such a duty if they were removed from the home without a warrant. In reading the cases, it feels like there was an oversight in drafting the state laws rather than some kind of legislative intent to suss out. Regardless, this has been the top litigated issue in California ICWA cases for almost a year now. In fact, it was nearly a year ago I posted about this at length. Apparently filing is finally underway in the In re Ja. O. case now. Briefing in the other set of cases appears to be complete but oral argument has not yet been set.
In this article, I explore the concept of Tribal self-determination in the context of healthcare systems that serve American Indian and Alaska Native communities. I investigate the vast health disparities that exist in Tribal communities, as well as the history and current legal framework for the provision of health care in Indian Country. Part of this discussion also provides information on the federal laws and policies that have fractured the traditional lifeways of Native communities and contributed to the disparate health outcomes that now exist. I also provide background on the fundamental federal laws and policies, particularly the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, that have facilitated greater Tribal control over programs and services for Tribal communities, including health systems. Tribally-managed health systems can, and are, playing a crucial role in closing this health gap.
This article also positions the status of Native communities in the United States within the global dialogue of the rights of indigenous peoples and the right to health, as indigenous communities subjected to settler-colonial states are demonstrably experiencing similar disparate outcomes. This discussion includes background on the international legal framework for the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the rights of indigenous peoples, and the social determinants of health, some of which are arguably unique to indigenous communities. The article explores these concepts for the lessons that may be garnered for the benefit of Tribal health systems. However, the article also argues that Tribes that are successfully operating healthcare systems have their own lessons to offer the global community regarding providing quality care and bringing American Indian and Alaska Native communities closer to actualizing the highest attainable standard of health.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.