Native Hawaiians

Commentary on the Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs Oral Argument

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

In all of the hullabaloo surrounding Carcieri and Navajo Nation II, you may have forgotten that the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a claim involving the Native Hawaiians, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Like the other two cases, the Supreme Court very clearly granted cert in this case in order to reverse. The only real discussion in this case was how far the Court would go in reversing.

The Hawaii Supreme Court held below that a Congressional apology resolution from a few years back had legal effect sufficient to prevent the State from selling Native Hawaiian trust lands. The question presented has to do whether the apology resolution has that legal effect.

The petitioner’s argument started right off with the moderate wing of the Court assuming that the apology resolution has no legal effect. They pressed the Hawaii Attorney General for reasons why the Court should do anything more than simply vacate and remand. In short, the question presented is already answered, probably 9-0.The only real question is whether to allow the Hawaii SCT to reconsider their decision under state law grounds alone, or whether to foreclose even that possibility by holding that federal law prevents the State from having a trust relationship to Native Hawaiians vis a vis this land.

Continue reading →

SCOTUSBlog’s Petitions to Watch for the Long Conference

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the list of the petitions to watch according to SCOTUSBlog for the long conference. It includes four Indian law cases, Kickapoo v. Texas, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, US v. Navajo Nation, and Kemp v. Osage Nation.

We agree (see here).

2008 Term Preview: The Long Conference — September 29, 2008

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

On September 29, 2008, the Supreme Court will convene for what is known as the long conference. Here is where the Court meets privately to make decisions on the summer backlog of cert petitions. There are EIGHT Indian law-related cert petitions scheduled for review in the long conference. There is a very good chance that one or more of these petitions will be granted.

1. Hawaii v. Office of Indian Affairs (07-1372)

This petition has a fairly good chance to be granted.

The first factor weighing in favor of a grant is that a state government is bringing the petition. The second factor weighing in favor are the three amicus briefs supporting the petition, often an attention getter for the clerks. Moreover, one of the amicus briefs is signed by 30 states and a U.S. territory, yet another point in favor of a grant. The wild card factor is that a similar petition reached the Court in the 2006 Term, but that one was settled out of court and dismissed (Doe v. Kamehameha Schools). Moreover, there is a case similar to Doe that has just been filed, and the Court might want to wait for that one (not sure why).

2. Ho-Chunk Nation v. Wisconsin (07-1402)

I don’t think this one has much chance to be granted.

It’s a sort of an interlocutory appeal, meaning the lower court hasn’t even reached the merits yet. And it’s being brought by an Indian tribe, which doesn’t appear to impress the Justices much. Finally, the petition cites me for the proposition that this is an important case, always a serious mistake. 8)

3. Kemp v. Osage Nation (07-1484)

This has a fairly good chance of being granted, too, but maybe not as good as the Hawaii case.

Kemp is actually the Oklahoma Tax Commission, always a Supreme Court favorite (remember the 1990s, Citizen Potawatomi, Sac and Fox, and Chickasaw Nation?). So, it’s a state government bringing the petition, weighing in favor of a grant. Moreover, the subject matter of the case is state sovereign immunity and the Ex parte Young exception. Again, a factor favoring a grant. But there doesn’t seem to be a split in authority. And the state’s argument that the Tenth Circuit’s decision conflicts with Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene seems to be a stretch, because this case is about taxation, and that one was about actual title to land.

4. Kickapoo v. Texas (07-1109)

This one has a slight chance for a grant.

I’d have said all along (and I did, I think) that this case has no chance for a grant. And then the US filed an unusual brief arguing for a denial, but making a powerful case for why the CA5 got this one wrong on every level. If the US brought the petition (it didn’t), then maybe there would be a grant on that argument alone. Baffling. Texas initially refused to file a cert opposition (probably because they read my blog entry 🙂 ), but then the Court called for a response.

Still, there’s no split. And other cases involving the same exact question are in the pipeline in Florida and Alabama. The Court will probably let this one percolate below.

5. Klamath Tribes v. PacificCorp (07-1492)

This one has no chance.

First, it’s being brought by an Indian tribe, not a favored petitioner. Second, Klamath is bringing a federal common law cause of action. The Court doesn’t favor those, either. And third, there’s no split in authority. Poor fish. 😦

6. Matheson v. Gregoire (08-23)

Again, no chance.

First, the case is being brought by an individual Indian who is challenging the fact that his tribe entered into a tax agreement with the state. He could challenge the agreement in tribal court (maybe he is), but instead he’s going to federal court. Second, there’s no split at all.

7. South Fork Band v. United States (08-100, 08-231)

No chance.

This is a case trying to reopen parts of the odious United States v. Dann decision from 20 years ago. The Court doesn’t like that, either.

8. United States v. Navajo Nation (07-1410)

Very, very good chance for a grant.

First, the petition is brought by the United States, which is the premier party in the Court’s eyes. I suspect far more than half of the US’s petitions are granted, and I’m sure all but a very few are seriously considered by the Court in conference. Second, this is the continuation of a case the Court thought to be important in 2002, U.S. v. Navajo Nation I. That case (and this one, too) involves a judgment against the United States that could reach one billion dollars, if interest attaches (a mere $600 million if it doesn’t). Third, though the Court technically left open several questions after Navajo Nation I, it strongly stamped down the first theory brought by the Navajo Nation. One suspects the Court doesn’t like seeing a case reaching an outcome it rejected once come back again under a second theory. We could either have an outcome like U.S. v. Mitchell (tribe loses first time, comes back second time and wins with new theory), or N.Y. v. Milhelm Attea (Court repeatedly instructs lower court to find against tribe, only to be forced to do the dirty work itself).

Either way you have a grant.

Rose Villazor on Indian Blood Quantum and Equal Protection

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Rose Cuison Villazr (SMU) has posted her wonderful paper, “Blood Quantum Land Laws and the Race Versus Political Dilemma,” forthcoming in the California Law Review, on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Modern equal protection doctrine treats laws that make distinctions on the basis of indigeneity defined on blood quantum terms along a racial versus political paradigm. This dichotomy may be traced to Morton v. Mancari and, more recently, to Rice v. Cayetano. In Mancari, the Supreme Court held that laws that privilege members of American Indian tribes do not constitute racial discrimination because the preferences have a political purpose – to further the right of self-government of federally recognized American Indian tribes. Rice crystallized the juxtaposition of the racial from the political nature of indigeneity by invalidating a law that privileged Native Hawaiians. That law, according to the Court, used an ancestral blood requirement to construct a racial category and a racial purpose as opposed to the legally permissible political purpose of promoting the right of self-government of American Indian tribes.

Continue reading →

US Civil Rights Commission: Racism in Rez Border Towns

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Given the strange make-up of the current US Civil Rights Commission (that recently “warned” of the harm that affirmative action causes to students and argued that the Akaka Bill was unconstutional), one wonders what will come of this particular panel.

The press release is here.

Wither the Akaka Bill?

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The White House OMB came out with its objections to the Akaka Bill, namely that the Congressional recognition of Native Hawaiians would be an unconstitutional race-based classification.

My sense is that any constitutional objections to the Bill could be overcome with the political will to do so. But this document articulates (in coded language) that there just is no political will from the Bush Administration to take any action to assist people of color.

Native Hawaiian Ancestry

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the AP:

“In a federal lawsuit filed in 2005, Native Hawaiians with at least 50 percent islander blood want exclusive control over state programs currently open to everyone with at least some Native Hawaiian blood. In a separate dispute that could also be headed for court, state residents with no Native Hawaiian ancestry are questioning why they can’t join a Hawaiians-only voter registry.The two cases are just the latest in a string of challenges over the special treatment accorded Native Hawaiians.”

As usual, typical reportage of a very complicated and important issue — boiling down a complex question about minority rights and government programs designed to remedy a very long history of racism, discrimination, political violence, and government-sponsored privileging of non-minority people to a code word: “special treatment.” And everyone knows that code word means simply this — it’s wrong. So the AP (like virtually every other news agency) has adopted the code words of those opposing programs designed to remedy the effects of historical and ongoing race discrimination.

A serious and thoughtful discussion of these complicated issues would exclude such terms as “special treatment” or “special rights.” The reason, of course, that Congress took the action it did in the case of the Native Hawaiians is because non-Hawaiians accorded themselves “special treatment” and “special rights” ever since 1896.