Will a Justice Sotomayor Transform Indian Law?

Federal Indian law is at a dead end in the Supreme Court, but a new Justice – a transformative Justice – could shake the Court out of its current rut. But it’s a stretch….

Only time will tell whether President Obama’s nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter – Judge Sonia Sotomayor – will be sufficient to transform federal Indian law from its current status as a backwater of constitutional law. And there is no doubt that the Court’s view of federal Indian law and policy – and particularly Indian tribal government – is stagnant and atavistic. The Court is in need of a visionary mind to help refocus its collective mindset about Indian law and policy.

Judge Sotomayor will be only the third racial minority and the third woman on the Supreme Court. Importantly, she will be the first minority Justice with an inkling about the special property and political rights of certain minority people — in her case, the people of Puerto Rico. In some ways, American Indians and Puerto Ricans have much in common. In large measure, neither group wants complete integration into the American polity, preferring an existence on the fringes of the United States. This alone may help to shake up the mentality of the rest of the Justices, who seem a bit suprised and annoyed that Indian people don’t want to give up their separate political and ethnic identities.

The addition of one President Obama-appointed Justice is very unlikely to make much of a difference, except in a case or two over the course of years. A Justice Sotomayor may be a simple replacement for Justice Souter’s vote in Indian law cases. Souter’s votes tended to favor tribal interests in treaty and trust cases, but went against tribal interests in taxation and jurisdiction cases. Flipping Justice Souter’s vote in a tax or jurisdiction case would not have made any difference in the outcome of any major case in the last ten years, so the impact of a new Justice is muted.

However, and this is a huge if, a new Justice could force the remainder of the Justices to reconsider Indian law principles. Right now, as we opined yesterday, the Court merely ignores inconvenient Indian affairs history or Congressional intent or its own precedents. A transformative Justice could at least force the Court to address history, to address foundational principles. That might be enough to preserve the votes of Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens, JJ. And it might be enough to pick up a vote from Justice Kennedy, or even Justice Alito, who is as close to a blank slate on Indian law as any of the Justices. Who knows?

Commentary on Possible Obama SCT Nominees

Now that the election is over, the commentaries on who President Obama might nominate to serve on the Supreme Court have begun in earnest. The crop of leading names, all of which is crazily speculative, are very exciting in general. There may be more Indian law judicial and practitioner experience in this group than ever before.

Here are a list of the more prominent names, taken from the ABA Journal’s list on page 63 of its November 2008 issue, and their import for Indian Country based on their experience in Indian law cases:

1. Judge Diane Wood

Judge Wood sits on the Seventh Circuit, which doesn’t hear very many Indian law cases, but she does have a significant track record.

She wrote the majority opinion in U.S. v. Long (2003), in which the court upheld the Duro fix prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Lara. In Wisconsin v. EPA (2001), she wrote the majority opinion, in which the court held that the EPA’s decision to grant treatment-as-state status to the Sokaogon Chippewa Community was reasonable. In Sokaogon Chippewa Community v. Babbitt (2000), she wrote the majority opinion in a case the court held it was reasonable for the district court to reject the St. Croix Chippewa Tribe’s motion to intervene in a gaming case involving three other Wisconsin tribes. In Thomas v. United States (1999), she wrote the majority opinion holding that the LCO Chippewa Band’s tribal council was not a necessary party to a claim challenging the outcome of a Secretarial election. Most recently, in Burgess v. Walters (2006), she wrote the majority opinion upholding the State of Wisconsin’s action in committing an Indian based on the PL280 criminal/prohibitory — civil/regulatory analysis.

Without a doubt, Judge Wood’s opinions in her several Indian law cases demonstrate that she is very respectful to Indian tribes and to tribal sovereignty. Wisconsin and Long could have easily gone the other way. Even in the cases she were rules against tribal interests, she does not denigrate Indians and tribes in any way.

2. Seth Waxman

Mr. Waxman is another interesting choice for Indian Country. He has more experience in litigating federal Indian law cases than any of the others mentioned for a nomination. As the US Solicitor General under President Clinton, his name is appended to dozens of Indian law cases (e.g., Minnesota v. Mille Lacs, Idaho v. United States, other cases from 1997-2001), but he never argued an Indian law case before the Court during that time. However, since he’s been back in private practice he’s worked at least three Indian law cases — City of Roseville v. Norton (D.C. Cir. 2003), San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 2007), and MichGO v. Kempthorne (D.C. Cir. 2008), all on behalf of the tribes involved in those cases.

His experience in Indian law is outstanding and, like Judge Wood, might help the Court see Indian law in a new light.

Continue reading