federal indian law – Page 3

Federal Indian Law in Top Specialized Journals

March 9, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

At the recommendation of some commentators on the post on general law reviews, here is a list of how often Federal Indian Law appears in articles published by top tier specialized journals (journals published by the top 15 law schools).

Michigan Journal of Race & Law (7) — Fletcher (2007), Maillard (2007), Ray (2007), Gilden (2007), Grijalva (2006), Ragsdale (2004), Clarkson (2002). 5 student notes and 1 symposium piece (Tsosie 2005).
Columbia Human Rights Law Review (6) — Idelman (2004), Fletcher (2003), Riley (2002), Dougherty (1998), Porter (1997), Pearce (1991). 2 student notes.
Harvard Human Rights Journal (5) — Graham (2008), Anaya (2001), Duthu (2000), Weissner (1999), Berkey (1992)
Univ. of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (4) — Fletcher (2005), Porter (1998), Pinkham (1997), Barsh (1993). 6 student notes.
Stanford Environmental Law Journal (4) — Carpenter (2008), Wood (2008), O’Neill (2000), Harbison (1995). 2 symposium piece, 1 student note, and 1 book excerpt.
Harvard Environmental Law Review (4) — Wood (2008), King (1994), Pacheco (1991), Ragsdale (1986). 1 student note.
Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal (3) — Cowan (2006), Porter (2002), Anaya (1998)
Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law (3) — Rand/Light (2006), Rose (1999), Rand (1997).
Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy (2) — Hopkins (2004), Burton and Ruppert (1999). 4 symposium pieces.
Harvard Journal on Legislation (2) — Fletcher (2007), Williams (1985). 1 student paper (Porter, 1990) Continue reading →

Federal Indian Law in General Law Reviews

March 9, 2009March 9, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

What are the chances, statistically, of an article focusing on Federal Indian Law being accepted and published by a general law review? Which law reviews published the most articles about Federal Indian Law in the last 30 years (at least according to WESTLAW, which goes back further for some journals than others)?

Here are the results of this not-so-scientific survey. The first list is of the top 75 or so law reviews (plus New Mexico and Geo. Mason, who can pretty strong claims to the top 75, even if their law reviews aren’t there yet), using the Wash & Lee current “combined” stats, ranked by the number of articles, published that are predominantly about Federal Indian Law, and using symposium pieces, book reviews, and student notes as a tie-breaker.

The number before the law review name is the W&L ranking, the number following the name is the number of stand-alone articles published, and the rest should be self-explanatory.

Top 75

(62) Arizona State (25) — Miller (2008), Berger (2005), Washburn (2004), Nakai (2003), Goldberg (2003), Hannah (2003), Zellmer (2000), Pearson (2000), O’Melinn (1999), LaVelle (1999), Pommersheim (1999), Suagee (1999), Tsosie (1999), Epps (1998), Koehn (1997), Meteer (1996), Miller (1996), Royster (1995), Joranko (1994), Limas (1994), Zion (1993), Trope (1992), Marsh (1992), R. Johnson (1992), Strickland (1992). 31 other pubs.
(132) New Mexico (11) — Kunesh (2007), Smith (2005), Laurence (1998), Lee (1998), Reynolds (1997), Alexander (1997), Strickland (1996), Rice (1996), Klein (1996), Limas (1996), Luna (1996). 27 student papers and symposium papers. and 1 postscript.
(65) Oregon (9) — Rosser (2008), Wildenthal (2007), Krakoff (2004), Braveman (2003), Miller (2001), Cross (2000), Ansson (1999), King (1998), Laurence (1990). 9 other pubs.
(48) Washington (8) — Riley (2005), R. Johnson (1992), R. Johnson (1991), Royster (1989), Wilkinson (1989), Canby (1987), Barsh (1984), Barsh (1981). At least 20 student pubs, and 9 symposium pieces and book reviews.
(41) Arizona (7) — Rosser (2005), Dussias (2001), Laurence (2000), Cross (1998), Winslow (1996), Vetter (1994), Clinton (1990). Five student pubs. Seven symposium pieces and book reviews.
(42) Colorado (6) — Pommersheim (2000), Blumm (1998), Mergen (1997), Smith (1990), Royster (1988), Getches (1988). Six student pubs. Ten symposium pieces and book reviews.
(16) Minnesota (6) — Washburn (2008), Getches (2001), Atwood (1999), Frickey (1996), Joranko (1993), Worthen (1990), Three student pubs.
(24) North Carolina (6) — Clarkson (2007), Washburn (2006), Dussias (1999), Reynolds (1995), Worthen (1993), Reynolds (1984). One student note.
(67) Nebraska (6) — Fletcher (2006), Dussias (2005), Pollman (2004), Snowden (2001), Atwood (2000), Brietzke and Klein (1999). 2 student pubs.
(13) UCLA (5 soon to be 6) — Carpenter (2005), Goldberg (2002), Coker (1999), Goldberg (1997), Atwood (1989). Berger has one article forthcoming in 2009. Five student pubs. Five symposium pieces and replies. Continue reading →

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

August 26, 2008Matthew 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.

Ottawa Tribe v. Ohio Dept. Natural Resources Treaty Rights Claim Rejected

April 3, 2008April 3, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion (H/T Indianz). Here is the link to the materials we placed on the blog in December.

Angelique Eaglewoman: The Philosophy of Colonization Underlying Taxation Imposed Upon Tribal Nations within the United States

March 26, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Angelique Eagelwoman (soon to be at Idaho Law) has posted “The Philosophy of Colonization Underlying Taxation Imposed Upon Tribal Nations within the United States” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Tribal Nations are inherently sovereign by internal definition as well as by classic European political science theory. Voluntary wealth distribution was the basis for the functioning of tribal government rather than externally imposed demands for pro rata shares of individual tribal member income. Through treaty-making with Tribal Nations, the United States expanded and asserted its ability to govern the influx of European immigrants and captive Africans by recognizing tribal territorial boundaries and seeking peaceful relations. Within the United States Constitution, Tribal Nations are mentioned in terms of not being taxed and as engaged with Congress in terms of commerce. Despite this history, U.S. relations shifted on one of military dominance over Tribal Nations skewing the sovereign-to-sovereign relationship set forth in treaty agreements.

Continue reading →

WaPo Coverage of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill S.Ct. Case

February 24, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From WaPo:

When a federal jury in Alaska in 1994 ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion to thousands of people who had their lives disrupted by the massive Exxon Valdez oil spill, an appeal of the nation’s largest punitive damages award was inevitable.

But almost no one could have predicted the incredible round of legal ping-pong that only this month lands at the Supreme Court.

In the time span of the battle — 14 years after the verdict, nearly two decades since the spill itself — claimants’ lawyers say there is a new statistic to add to the grim legacy of the disaster in Prince William Sound: Nearly 20 percent of the 33,000 fishermen, Native Alaskans, cannery workers and others who triumphed in court that day are dead.

Continue reading →

DC Circuit Vacates EPA Mercury Emissions — New Jersey v. EPA

February 9, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion.

Here is a link to our previous post that included several briefs, including the tribal brief.

Congrats to the petitioners!

Tribal Amicus Brief in Exxon Valdez Damages Case

February 4, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Congress of American Indians et al., in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (No. 07-219).

Other briefs in this case are here.

July 2007 NY State Bar Exam Indian Law Question

January 18, 2008January 18, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

We know that Washington, New Mexico, and South Dakota have Indian law on the state bar exam, but so did the July 2007 New York state bar(!!!!).

Update from Paul Spruhan: The question came from a “multistate performance test” that is created by the National Conference of Bar Examiners and administered in all states that utilize the MPT. The MPT is an additional part of those states’ bar exams in addition to the essays and multi-state multiple choice exam (here’s their web site: http://www.ncbex.org/multistate-tests/mpt/)

Continue reading →