Washington Law Review Indian Law Restatement Symposium

Issue: Volume 97, Number 3 (2022)

Table of Contents


Table of Contents

Front Matter




Eric D. Eberhard

Lake Michigan from Milwaukee — kinda the same, kinda different than Puget Sound.



Bringing Congress and Indians Back into Federal Indian Law: The Restatement of the Law of American Indians
Kirsten Matoy Carlson


Tribal Sovereignty and Economic Efficiency Versus the Courts
Robert J. Miller


Off-Reservation Treaty Hunting Rights, the Restatement, and the Stevens Treaties
Ann E. Tweedy



Reflections on the Restatement of the Law of American Indians
Matthew L.M. Fletcher


Protection for Indian Sacred Sites
William A. Fletcher


Why Our Stories Matter: A Perspective on the Restatement from the State Bench
Raquel Montoya-Lewis

Utah Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Ute Banishment Case

Here are the new materials in Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Unitah and Ouray Indian Reservation (D. Utah), formerly Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribal Court of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation:

Tenth Circuit materials here. Earlier materials in the district court here.

Michael Olivas Walks On

I learned late last week as the second restatement symposium was wrapping up that Michael Olivas had died (see also Ediberto Román’s moving post). Without Michael, there would have been no Indian law restatement (or it would have looked a lot different).

In 2010, Michael reached out to me and asked me if I wanted to be a member of the American Law Institute. I had never met the man, but he wanted to enable junior scholars from underprivileged backgrounds to become a part of the ALI. Barely knowing what the ALI was, I agreed. Within the next couple years, Wenona Singel and I were spearheading a restatement project and dragging along people like Venus Prince and Keith Harper to help us.

Over the years, Michael continued to elevate my work. When he became President of the American Association of Law Schools, he asked me to join the empirical research committee.

Michael added me to his rock and roll posse, where he discussed rock music and the law amongst friends. His emails were always a welcome respite from work, though they were frighteningly incisive on the law. Another time, he hosted me and our son Owen in Santa Fe for dinner, remarking that he could tell Owen’s parents were both lawyers; as a small boy, he already knew how use lawyer words like “actually” and how to hedge his opinions.

In 2020, when the Indigenous Law and Policy Center won the M. Shanara Gilbert Human Rights Award from the Society of American Law Teachers, Michael gave us the award and spoke about the restatement project. He was far too kind, generous, and inspirational.

2020 SALT awards ceremony

Michael was such a good guy. It’s amazing how gracious and generous people can be. I’m glad I could get it together to wish him a good journey in time.

U. Washington Law School Symposium on the Restatement of the Law of American Indians

Register here.

Completely random images (badly photographed by Fletcher) at restatement project meetings (guess I only took pics in 2015 . . .):

Philadelphia 2015 ALI Council Meeting
D.C. 2015 Advisers Meeting
D.C. 2015 Advisers Meeting
D.C. 2015 ALI Membership Meeting

Semi-Split Tenth Circuit Decides Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation [banishment]

Here is the opinion.

Briefs here.

An excerpt:

We begin by discussing the tribal exhaustion doctrine involved in this case. “[W]hen a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim arising in Indian country over which a tribal forum has colorable jurisdiction, principles of comity and the federal policy of promoting tribal self-government generally require that the plaintiff fully exhaust tribal remedies before proceeding in federal court.” Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 59 cmt. a (Am. Law Inst., Proposed Final Draft 2021).

slip op. at 14.

Maybe a little more Restatement. . . .

Post–Santa Clara Pueblo, federal review has been limited to habeas, leaving tribal courts to adjudicate any other civil rights claims. See Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 16 cmt. a (“With the exception of actions for habeas corpus relief [under § 1303, ICRA’s civil rights] guarantees are enforceable exclusively in tribal courts and other tribal fora.”).

slip op. at 21.
Ute Indians camped at Belle Fourche, South Dakota, who are dissatisfied with their treatment: Capt. Johnson, with the Sixth Cavalry from Ft. Meade, S.D., addressing Indians, who they were sent to arrest

And more. . . .

Tribal exhaustion doctrine exists to preserve tribal sovereignty and prevent the federal courts from running roughshod over tribal legal systems. See Norton, 862 F.3d at 1243; Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 28 cmt. a (“[A]djudication of matters impairing reservation affairs by any nontribal court . . . infringes upon tribal law-making authority, because tribal courts are best qualified to interpret and apply tribal law.”).

Slip op. at 34.