Arizona State Law Journal

Arizona State NDN Law Students Win National Writing Prizes + Publish in the ASU Law Journal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the news item on the prizes. And here are the articles:

Noah Goldberg published “Indian Embryos as ‘Indian Children’?” in the Arizona State Law Journal (PDF). Here is an excerpt:

This Comment argues that ICWA protections should apply to human embryos in all states that reject pure property regimes for embryo disposition. Otherwise, personhood regimes would serve as an end-run around ICWA.34 Once personhood regimes treat embryos as persons or create rules implementing family law before the birth of a child, inevitable tensions arise with ICWA. Not applying ICWA protections to these regimes would undermine the spirit of ICWA and create an unacceptable legal loophole to circumvent the rights of tribes, Indian parents, and Indian children. However, ICWA would not have to apply at the embryo-disposition stage in states that adopt pure property regimes because future parental rights are not determined at the dissolution stage. Part II surveys ICWA, its purpose, and its protections. Part III explores the current state of embryo-disposition laws and focuses on the newly passed Arizona personhood disposition regime. Part IV analyzes how ICWA should interact with personhood regime states and examines the risks that personhood states pose to tribes, Indian families, and the spirit of ICWA. Part V concludes that the best way forward is to reject personhood regimes in favor of pure property regimes or stringently impose ICWA protections at the embryo-disposition stage in personhood states whenever substantive family law is adjudicated.

Claire Newfeld has published “Indian Boarding School Deaths and the Federal Tort Claims Act: A Route to a Remedy” in the Arizona State Law Journal (PDF).

An excerpt:

With such somber results expected from the American investigation, tribes deserve a remedy that will make them as close to whole as possible. There are several potential remedies that tribes and families can pursue, such as filing a lawsuit or lobbying for relief in Congress. The United States must listen to Native communities in determining what remedy will provide the most opportunity for healing and reparation. This Comment will attempt to contribute to that dialogue by arguing that, should the affected parties seek relief through litigation, they possess valid wrongful-death or negligence causes of action14 under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA” or “Act”).

New Scholarship on Air Regulation in Indian Country

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Jonathan Skinner-Thompson has posted “Tribal Air,” forthcoming in the Arizona State Law Journal, on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Prevailing approaches to addressing environmental justice in Indian Country are inadequate. The dual pursuits of distributive and procedural justice do not fully account for the unique factors that make Indigenous environmental justice distinct—namely, the sovereign status of tribal nations and the ongoing impacts of colonization.

This article synthetizes interdisciplinary approaches to theorizing Indigenous environmental justice and proposes a framework to aid environmental law scholars and advocates. Specifically, by centering Indigenous environmental justice in terms of coloniality and self-determination, this framework can better critique and improve environmental governance regimes when it comes to pollution in Indian Country.

This article tests that framework on air regulation in Indian Country. Although many consider the Clean Air Act a regulatory success story, air pollution still disproportionately harms American Indians and Alaska Natives. To that end, Tribal Air offers a comprehensive account of air regulation in Indian Country, including a more detailed analysis of tribal air quality laws. It then applies theories of settler colonialism and instruments of self-determination to the implementation of the Clean Air Act in Indian Country. Together these concepts aspire towards an anti-colonialist purpose and offer important ways to achieve Indigenous environmental justice.

Arizona State Law Journal Call for Papers for Issue on Arizona Indian Law Issues

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Robert Anderson on the Katie John Litigation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Robert T. Anderson has published “The Katie John Litigation: A Continuing Search for Alaska Native Fishing Rights After ANCSA” in the Arizona State Law Journal (PDF).

Highly recommended!!!!

New Student Scholarship on Indian Country Cross Deps

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is “Bridging the Jurisdictional Void: Cross-Deputization Agreements in Indian Country,” forthcoming in the Arizona State Law Journal.

The abstract:

Comment examines cross-deputization agreements in Indian Country, focusing on the relationship between tribes and state and local governments and the impact cross-deputization agreements have on enforcing criminal law in Indian Country. Section I examines the recent rise and evolution in tribal law enforcement powers. Section II briefly addresses the current ability of tribal police to enforce laws off of tribal land and the ability of state police to enforce laws on tribal land. Finally, Section III examines the benefits and issues involved with cross deputization agreements.

Patty Ferguson-Bohnee on Indian Voting Rights in Arizona

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Patty Ferguson-Bohnee has posted “The History of Indian Voting Rights in Arizona: Overcoming Decades of Voter Suppression,” which she published in the Arizona State Law Journal. Here is the abstract:

Native Americans “have experienced a long history of disenfranchisement as a matter of law and of practice.” This comes from a complicated and contradictory history of laws and policy that has recognized tribes as separate sovereigns, reduced tribal status to that of domestic dependent nations, sought to remove, relocate, or assimilate tribal citizens, terminated numerous indigenous nations, and has now moved to a policy of tribal self-government. Unfortunately, the right to vote for Arizona’s first people has only recently been achieved, and there are continuing threats to the electoral franchise.

Voter suppression has been used to discourage or prevent Indian people from voting in Arizona. Voter qualifications such as literacy tests were used to prevent Indians from participating in elections for approximately fifty years. Once Native Americans started voting, redistricting and vote dilution were used to reduce the effectiveness of the Native vote.

This article will review the history of Indian voting rights in Arizona. The author begins by reviewing the history of Native American voting rights and the history of voting discrimination against Native Americans in Arizona. The Voting Rights Act turned the corner for Native people to participate in the state and federal election processes. The article then discusses the current challenges faced by Native American voters and specifically discuss the voter ID law passed in 2004. The voter ID law is a roadblock that impedes full participation by all Arizona Indians. The last part of the article focuses on strategies to protect Indian voting rights. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Section 5 coverage formula in Shelby County, tribes should consider proactive measures to ensure that tribal citizens can participate in elections.

Highly recommended.

Arizona State Law Journal Symposium: “School-To-Prison Pipeline in Indian Country”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Webcast link here.

Conference materials here.

Featuring our current and former colleagues Tiffani Darden and Laura McNeal!

Two Indian Law Articles in Newest Volume of Arizona State Law Journal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Reid Peyton Chambers’ Canby Lecture, “REFLECTIONS ON THE CHANGES IN INDIAN LAW, FEDERAL INDIAN POLICIES AND CONDITIONS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS SINCE THE LATE 1960s,” is available in pdf here.

And Matthew L.M. Fletcher’s “A UNIFYING THEORY OF TRIBAL CIVIL JURISDICTION” is available in pdf here and here.

Fletcher: “A Unifying Theory of Tribal Civil Jurisdiction”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Please see “A Unifying Theory of Tribal Civil Jurisdiction” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This paper addresses one of the most dynamic and useful areas of American Indian law. I situate my arguments between two competing and intractable theories dominating the field – the consent theory, which limits tribal jurisdiction to those who expressly consent to tribal governance; and the territory theory, which expands tribal jurisdiction to anyone in Indian country. The consent theory unnecessarily undercuts tribal authority on Indian lands, assuming without evidence that nonconsenters will not receive a fair shake in tribal forums. Meanwhile, the territory theory unnecessarily exposes nonconsenters to Indian authority on non-Indian owned land, where tribal power is weakest and least justified.

I propose a simpler solution that unites the two theories and brings realism to the discussion. Where activities occur on Indian lands, tribal jurisdiction should be presumed subject to a simple fairness test any court could conduct, but that is currently (and ironically) barred by the Supreme Court. The reality is that tribal governments are already successfully exercising this power, but the common law is lax in its recognition of tribal governance, generating unpredictability and confusion.

Substantive comments welcome.

Arizona State Law Journal Article on Tribal Lending

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here, by Rob Rosette and Saba Bazzazieh