American Indian Law Review

American Indian Law Review to Publish Papers from MSU Conference “American Indian Law and Literature”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is a listing of the articles to be published in volume 33, no. 1:

  • From Hatuey to Che: Indigenous Cuba Without Indians and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – Larry Catá Backer
  • “Channeling Thought”: The Legacy of Legal Fictions from 1823 – Jen Camden & Kathryn E. Fort
  • Interpretive Sovereignty: A Research Agenda – Kristen A. Carpenter
  • Crossover – Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic
  • Red Leaves and the Dirty Ground: The Cannibalism of Law and Economics – Matthew L.M. Fletcher
  • Genealogy as Continuity: Explaining the Growing Tribal Preference for Descent Rules in Membership Governance in the United States – Kirsty Gover
  • Writing the Living Law: American Indian Literature as Legal Narrative – Amelia V. Katanski
  • How Lawyers Resolve Ethical Dilemmas: An Essay on James Welch’s The Indian Lawyer – Renee Newman Knake
  • Narrative Braids: Performing Racial Literacy – Margaret Montoya & Christine Zuni Cruz, interviewed by Gene Grant
  • At the Edge of Indian Law Scholarship: A Poem Instead of a Footnote – Frank Pommersheim

Kristen Carpenter on Interpretative Sovereignty

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kristen Carpenter has posted her paper, “Interpretative Sovereignty: A Research Agenda,” on SSRN. It is forthcoming from the American Indian Law Review. Here is the abstract:

In federal Indian law, the treaty operates as our foundational legal text. Reflecting centuries-old historical political arrangements between Indian nations and the United States, treaties remain vital legal instruments that decide dozens of legal cases each year. Yet, these treaties — originally drafted in English by the federal government, following negotiations with tribal representatives who usually spoke their own languages — present a number of ambiguities for contemporary courts. The dominant model of treaty interpretation is one in which judges interpret treaties in a manner they they believe to reflect Indians’ understanding of treaty terms and, more generally, to promote the interests of Indian nations. While this liberal approach to treaty interpretation has secured a number of important Indian rights in the courts, it does not necessarily reflect the ways in which Indians actually perceived treaty terms in their own languages and cultures.

Continue reading →

Alex Skibine on Formalism and Judicial Supremacy in Federal Indian Common Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Alex Skibine has posted “Formalism and Judicial Supremacy in Federal Indian Common Law,” forthcoming in the American Indian Law Review. Here is the abstract:

In this article, Professor Skibine shows how in the last thirty years or so, the United States Supreme court has taken legal principles based on functionalism and transformed them into inflexible rules based on formalism. This has allowed the Court not only to rule against Indian tribal interests in 80% of its cases but also to achieve judicial supremacy in the field of Federal Indian law.