You can read my paper, “Rebooting Indian Law in the Supreme Court,” on SSRN here.

The paper is an edited version of the 2010 Dillon Lecture delivered at the University of South Dakota School of Law on February 18, 2010, and will be published in the South Dakota Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

This talk, delivered as the 2010 Dillon Lecture at the University of South Dakota School of Law, argues Indian nations and advocates – and the federal judiciary – view Indian law through a reactionary lens, deciding major issues as the cases arise. There are a few mini-movements, long-term strategies on a particular issue, such as the Cobell litigation, the fishing rights cases of the 1960s and 1970s, and perhaps a few others. But even those series of cases could hardly be called a strategic “movement.” As a result of a lack of a viable long-term strategy, I posit that tribal interests are and will continue to be punching bags in Supreme Court litigation.

I offer suggestions on how to reboot federal Indian law in the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court. I will discuss cases or lines of cases that demonstrate how Indian nations can persevere in the Supreme Court, and suggest potential long-term strategies for tribal interests to pursue.

Comments welcome, as this is still a draft.