A sneak preview:
A sneak preview:
UPDATE — Suquamish is the first tribe with a compact with a state… here.
Christopher B. Chaney has published “Data Sovereignty and the Tribal Law and Order Act” in the Federal Lawyer.
Here’s my profile of Judge Gould, from the April Federal Lawyer.
“Statutory Divestiture of Tribal Sovereignty” is now available on SSRN, here. Forthcoming in the Federal Lawyer, April 2017.
The Supreme Court’s non-decision in Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians is evidence not only of disagreement on tribal civil jurisdiction but perhaps also uncertainty in how to analyze divestiture of tribal sovereignty. Most scholars (including myself) have described the Court’s behavior in tribal sovereign authority cases as one of judicial supremacy, in that the Court merely makes policy choices based on its own ideological views of tribal power. That is a mistake. Persuaded by the federal government’s argument in Dollar General, I now argue that the proper analysis rests with federal statutes. Indian law practitioners can and should reconsider the Court’s prior decisions in this vein, as the best ones already do, and analyze tribal sovereign powers in the paradigm of statutory divestiture rather than judicial supremacy.
Here. My colleague Alan Stay was integrally involved in bringing the first treaty habitat case in U.S. v. WA, so this article makes for an interesting read.
Professor Tsosie’s excellent Federal Lawyer article on identity and sports mascots is available below. Her longer law review article on these subjects is available here.
As one of the curators of the Indian law columns for the Federal Lawyer, I am proud to have solicited this piece and grateful that she could squeeze writing it into her schedule.