Kirsten Matoy Carlson

Kirsten Carlson on Access to Justice in the Shadow of Colonialism

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted “Access to Justice in the Shadow of Colonialism,” published in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

The legal needs of most Americans go unmet, but American Indians and Alaska Natives face particular challenges in seeking access to justice. This article describes the complexity of access to justice issues in Native communities. Access to justice in Indian Country exists in the shadow of colonialism. The legacy of settler colonialism, including the imposition of unfamiliar laws and legal processes, has and continues to affect what justice means and how it is experienced by tribal governments, Native communities, and individual Natives. Understanding this unique backdrop encourages access to justice scholars to reconsider the centrality of power dynamics to access to justice.

Kirsten Carlson on Bryan Newland

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From DFP: “Bay Mills president’s Indian Affairs appointment will transform relationships“

Kirsten Carlson on Rethinking Legislative Advocacy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted “Rethinking Legislative Advocacy” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In an age of statutes, legislative advocates influence the substantive content of almost every law. Yet scholars know very little about the role that advocates play in shaping statutory law because the study of legislative advocacy has been left to political scientists, who focus on the political rather than the legal aspects of legislative lawmaking. This Article responds to this gap in the literature by presenting an innovative, mixed methods approach to studying legislative advocacy that brings law back into the study of legislative advocacy and provides more accurate descriptions of how legislative advocates behave. This legal approach to legislative advocacy improves on the existing political science literature by emphasizing the legislative process as a lawmaking enterprise and highlighting the importance of the substantive content of statutory laws to legislative advocates and their behavior. The Article demonstrates the utility of this approach by presenting new empirical data on American Indian advocacy. My analysis produces two important insights about legislative advocates’ behavior overlooked in previous studies. First, it reveals that advocates perceive legislative advocacy to be about modifying the substantive content of a proposed law. Legislative advocates take the law seriously as they engage in nuanced and sophisticated strategies to interact with legislators and other political actors to craft statutory laws. They advocate on a wide range of proposed laws, shift their positions strategically throughout the legislative process, and frequently seek to modify proposed laws. Second, my account of Indian advocacy emphasizes that legislative advocacy involves legal as well as political work. Indian advocates regularly used legal frames and arguments to educate and persuade legislators to shape the law in ways that better responded to their needs.

Kirsten Carlson on the Rise of Lobbying by Tribal Interests from 1978 to 2012

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted “Lobbying Against the Odds,” forthcoming in the Harvard Journal on Legislation. Here is the abstract:

Conventional narratives maintain that groups that lack political power litigate because they cannot attain their goals politically. Yet lobbying by American Indians has increased over 600 percent since the late 1970s. And they are not alone. Other politically marginalized groups have also intensified their lobbying efforts over the past five decades. This raises an important question that scholars have yet to adequately answer: Why do some groups use legislative strategies to achieve their goals? This Article challenges the prevailing wisdom and demonstrates that groups sometimes lobby even when the odds are stacked against them. It considers the existing sociolegal framework for understanding why groups litigate, and suggests modifications based on insights from interest group studies, to provide a more complete explanation of when and why groups engage in various advocacy strategies. This modified sociolegal approach produces significant insights into how legal and political actors influence and are influenced by the institutions they turn to, but also enables us to see similar—and divergent—patterns across contexts. The Article presents original quantitative data to document the dramatic rise in American Indian lobbying from 1978 to 2012. Then it uses the modified sociolegal approach to explain how the relationships among courts, the political process, and groups facilitated American Indian legislative advocacy. It concludes by discussing the implications of the approach for studies of legal mobilization, interest groups, and federal Indian law.

Recommended!

Kirsten Carlson on Lobbying Congress for Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted “Why Lobby Congress? Constitutive and Instrumental Influences on Indian Groups’ Strategies for Federal Recognition, 1977-2012” on SSRN. This paper is highly recommended.

Here is the abstract:

When and why do marginalized groups chose a particular institutional venue when pursuing their legal claims? This article combines theoretical and methodological insights from sociolegal and interest group studies to investigate why non-federally recognized Indian groups used legislative strategies for federal recognition from 1977 to 2012. It finds Indian groups employed legislative strategies both to increase their chances of success and for constitutive purposes, including educating the public and leveraging institutional tensions. The article’s emphasis on constitutive and instrumental motivations provides a more nuanced approach to understanding marginalized groups’ venue decisions.

Kirsten Carlson on Congress, Tribal Recognition, and Legislative-Administrative Multiplicity

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted her paper, “Congress, Tribal Recognition, and Legislative-Administrative Multiplicity,” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

For over thirty years, tribal leaders, state officials, members of Congress, and scholars have decried the process by which the United States recognizes Indian tribes. Most accounts have focused exclusively on the administrative process, omitting Congress from their analyses and suggesting that Congress plays a minor role in tribal recognition. The widely-accepted proposition that Congress has relinquished control over recognition is a testable hypothesis. This article tests this proposition empirically. The results call into question the dominant narrative about the congressional role in federal recognition and show that it is just plain wrong. In addition to debunking prevailing misconceptions, the data exposes an intriguing puzzle — a more complicated tale of legislative-administrative multiplicity. Federal recognition is not a uniform administrative process. Instead, parallel legislative and administrative processes exist and often intersect in complex ways. This discovery is an important first step towards understanding these dual processes and their implications for federal Indian law and understandings of legislative-administrative relationships more generally.

Highly recommended.

 

Kirsten Carlson’s “Congress and Indians”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kirsten Matoy Carlson has published “Congress and Indians” (PDF) in the University of Colorado Law Review. Here is the abstract:

Contrary to popular narratives about courts protecting certain minority rights from majoritarian influences, Indian nations lose in the United States Supreme Court over 75  percent of the time. As a result, scholars, tribal leaders, and advocates have suggested that Congress, as opposed to the courts, may be more responsive to Indian interests and have turned to legislative strategies for pursuing and protecting tribal interests. Yet very little is known about the kinds of legislation Congress enacts relating to American Indians. This Article charts new territory in this understudied area and responds to recent calls for more empirical legal studies in the field of federal Indian law by enhancing understandings of the amount and kinds of Indian-related legislation enacted by Congress. Based on an analysis of 7799 Indian-related bills, the Article expounds a basic typology of the kinds of Indian-related legislation introduced and enacted by Congress from 1975 to 2013. The Article reports a higher enactment rate for Indian-related legislation as compared to the enactment rate of all bills introduced in Congress. This finding problematizes traditional narratives about the success of minority groups in the political process and has serious implications for how scholars and advocates understand congressional policymaking. Further, the Article shows that much of this legislation does not affect Indians alone. Rather, Congress generates a substantial amount of legislation for the general welfare of its citizens, including Indians and Indian nations. It suggests that federal Indian law scholarship, which has focused on legislation specific to Indian nations, has overlooked an important part of the development of federal Indian law and policy. Finally, the Article considers some possible explanations for the higher enactment rate of Indian-related legislation and the implications of this study for congressional policymaking, especially federal Indian law and policy. It confirms the need for further investigation into the different kinds of Indian-related legislation and the complex relationships between Congress and Indians.

This is a highly anticipated and highly recommended paper. Counsel for tribal interests could be well served to consider routing resources away from litigation toward legislative efforts. Consider for one example the Gun Lake Tribe, which secured a legislative fix to the problem created by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Quiet Title Act.

Kirsten Carlson on The Supreme Court of Canada and Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted her paper, “Political Failure, Judicial Opportunity: The Supreme Court of Canada and Aboriginal and Treaty Rights,” just published in the American Review of Canadian Studies, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

What role do courts play in public policymaking? Fifty years ago, Robert Dahl found that courts largely defer to the political process in public policymaking. Accepted by the majority of scholars today, Dahl’s view suggests skepticism that courts play a significant role in the policymaking process. The few scholars, who concede that courts play a role in policymaking, often see that role as less direct or as in response to public opinion. Using the development of Aboriginal and treaty rights policy in Canada as a case study, I find that the Supreme Court of Canada succeeded in revitalizing the making of Aboriginal and treaty rights policy in the 1990s even without the support of politicians or the public. In 1990, the Court irrevocably altered Aboriginal and treaty rights policy by establishing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35(1) of the Constitution and curtailing Parliament’s ability to extinguish these rights. Most notably, the Court reinvigorated the policymaking process by encouraging politicians to revisit Aboriginal and treaty rights policies. When they failed, the Court re-entered the policymaking arena by recognizing and protecting a wide range of Aboriginal and treaty rights from governmental incursion over the next six years. The Court’s emergence as a significant and influential policymaker was the product of historical and institutional forces. While legal mobilization, growing public support, and the judicialization of politics contributed to the development of the Court’s role, I use interviews with political and legal players as well as the Court’s own language to show how the failure of the political process influenced the Court to reinvigorate Aboriginal and treaty rights policymaking. My emphasis on political failure illuminates a more complex relationship between courts, the political process, and policymaking. It also highlights how courts can play an influential role in public policy making.

 

 

Michigan State Law Review Symposium on Wenona Singel’s “Indian Tribes and Human Rights Accountability”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Michigan State Law Review has published several articles from its symposium on Wenona Singel’s paper “Indian Tribes and Human Rights Accountability.”

Tribal Rights, Human Rights

Kristen A. Carpenter & Angela R. Riley

2013 Mich. St. L. Rev. 293 | Download PDF

Nenabozho’s Smart Berries: Rethinking Tribal Sovereignty and Accountability

Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark

2013 Mich. St. L. Rev. 339 | Download PDF

Jurisdiction and Human Rights Accountability in Indian Country

Kirsten Matoy Carlson

2013 Mich. St. L. Rev. 355 | Download PDF

First “Review” of Scholarly Promise and Achievement

Frank Pommersheim

2013 Mich. St. L. Rev. 291 | Download PDF

Tribal Sovereignty and Human Rights

Joseph William Singer

2013 Mich. St. L. Rev. 307 | Download PDF

A Most Grievous Display of Behavior: Self-Decimation in Indian Country

David E. Wilkins

2013 Mich. St. L. Rev. 325 | Download PDF

Healing to Wellness Courts: Therapeutic Justice

Joseph Thomas Flies-Away & Carrie E. Garrow

2013 Mich. St. L. Rev. 403 | Download PDF

 

Kirsten Carlson Article on U.S. Reconsideration of UNDRIP

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is that article, intended to be an additional supplement to the FBA Indian Law Section Newsletter for Fall 2010.

US Reviewing Its Policy on UNDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples