David Wilkins has published “Exiling One’s Kin: Banishment and Disenrollment in Indian Country” in Western Legal History. This excellent piece describes banishment and membership laws from traditional law through the early 20th century and into the modern era of tribal banishment and disenrollment.
tribal membership
Paul Spruhan on Navajo Blood Quantum
Paul Spruhan (Navajo Nation Supreme Court law clerk) has posted, “The Origins, Current Status, and Future Prospects of Blood Quantum as the Definition of Membership in the Navajo Nation” (forthcoming in the Tribal Law Journal) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The paper, forthcoming in the Tribal Law Journal, traces the origins of the requirement that persons have one-quarter or more Navajo blood to be enrolled in the Navajo Nation. Through minutes of the Navajo Nation Council and Bureau of Indian Affairs documents, the paper discusses the genesis of this requirement in the context of the development of the Nation’s natural resources and the Nation’s attempts to adopt a tribal constitution. The paper further examines recent unsuccessful efforts to revise the requirement, and the possibility of challenges to the requirement under the recently passed statute mandating application of the Fundamental Laws of the Dine.
Kirsty Gover on Tribal Membership Criteria
Kirsty Gover, a grad student, has posted “Genealogy as Continuity: Explaining the Growing Tribal Preference for Descent Rules in Membership Governance” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This article presents the findings of a large-scale study of current and historic tribal membership rules contained in the constitutions of federally-recognized tribes. The constitutions of 245 tribes in the lower 48 states are surveyed. The article explains changes in membership governance by reference to changes in the political, legal and social environments of tribes, including especially shifts in federal Indian policy and tribal demography. It discusses the increasing tribal preference for lineal descent and tribal blood quantum rules, relative to older criteria such as parental enrollment, parental residence and Indian blood quantum rules. It explains that these rules are tribe-specific, in contrast to the pan-tribal measures of Indianness and Indian blood quantum used in federal law and policy, and suggests that while tribes deploy familiar administrative mechanisms, such as blood quantum, they increasingly refashion these as measures of genealogy rather than race. It further argues that these rules are a form of tribal self-help, that assist a tribe to repair disruptions in its continuity, especially those occurring as a result of the operation of termination policy.
Pechanga Disenrollment Dispute – Salinas v. Barron
The California Court of Appeals (4th Dist., Div. 2) decided Salinas v. Barron, another in the series of cases involving the Pechanga Band’s various membership disputes. This case involves the disenrollment of the plaintiffs in LaMere v. Superior Court, 131 Cal. App. 4th 1059 (2005).
From the opinion:
In LaMere, the plaintiffs were members of the Pechanga Band of Temecula Luiseo Mission Indians (the Band); the defendants were members of the Band’s enrollment committee. The defendants had allegedly commenced proceedings to disenroll the plaintiffs, in violation of the Band’s own laws. This court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction of the dispute.
Continue reading
Alvarado v. Table Mountain Rancheria (9th Cir.) Materials
Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims by a class represented by Pearl Alvarado that they are entitled to membership in the Table Mountain Rancheria. The Ninth Circuit did not address the tribe’s claim of sovereign immunity, but instead ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
Marilyn Vann Talk Materials
On November 9, 2007, Marilyn Vann spoke about the history of the Cherokee Freedmen here at MSU law college. As she did during her talk at last April’s Federal Bar Association’s Indian Law Conference, she presented a slide show of numerous materials.
Here are the materials — Marilyn Vann Materials
And here is a description of each page in the materials provided by Marilyn: Continue reading
Vann v. Kempthorne Materials
Last December, the federal court denied the Cherokee Nation’s motion to dismiss Vann v. Kempthorne. The Nation had argued that it was a necessary and indispensable party under FRCP 19. And, because it hadn’t waived its immunity, the Nation argued that the federal case must be dismissed. The United States argued that the case should be dismissed under the tribal court exhaustion doctrine. The court disagreed.
Fletcher: On Black Freedmen
My newly revised paper, now titled “On Black Freedmen,” should be up on SSRN in the next few days. The paper will be part of Justice Unveiled: African American Culture and Legal Discourse (Lovalerie King & Richard Schur, eds.).
From the Abstract:
In recent years, some legal, political, and cultural questions involving American Indians have begun to overlap – and conflict – with those of African Americans. The recent Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma’s vote to strip the Black Freedmen of tribal membership generated allegations of racism and calls to force Indian tribes to comply with the Reconstruction Amendments sheds light on this question. This controversy highlights a serious problem in Indian-Black political and social relationships – the discourse of Black-White racism has begun to intrude into the discourse of American Indian law. The Reconstruction Amendments, federal civil rights statutes, and federal case law—all established as a reaction to Black-White racism –– expresses important antidiscrimination principles that can conflict with the foundational elements of American Indian law: tribal sovereignty, the trust relationship, and measured separatism. To import the law of Black-White racism into American Indian law is to destroy American Indian law and, potentially, American Indian culture.
“Tribal Extinction” Panel — This Friday
Tribal Extinction: Enrollment Issues in the 21st Century – featuring Marilyn Vann and Mike Phelan
The Native American Law Students Association and the Center for Diversity Services will welcome two speakers on Friday, November 9 to discuss perspectives of tribal enrollment, a controversial issue at the forefront of Indian Law and Constitutional Law. The event features guest speakers Marilyn Vann, recently disenrolled from the Cherokee Nation and lead plaintiff in the Cherokee Freedmen cases, and Mike Phelan, counsel for the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians. The event begins at 6:30pm in the Castle Board Room on the 3rd floor of the MSU College of Law. Dinner will be served and all are welcome. Please contact Melissa Velky with any questions at velkymel@msu.edu.
Details about the Cherokee Freedmen (and others) are here.
Cherokee Freedmen Materials
H/T to Indianz.com:
Cherokee-Related Legislation:
H.R.2786 | H.R.2895 | H.R.2824 | H.R.3002
BIA Letters:
August 9, 2007 | July 11, 2007 | June 22, 2007 | May 21, 2007 | March 28, 2007 | August 30, 2006
Sovereign Immunity Court Decision:
Vann v. Kempthorne (December 19, 2006) Cherokee Nation Judicial Appeals Tribunal Decision in Freedmen Case:
Allen v. Cherokee Nation (March 7, 2006)
Relevant Links:
Cherokee Nation – http://www.cherokee.org
Freedmen Of The Five Civilized Tribes – http://www.freedmen5tribes.com
Freedmen Conference – http://www.freedmenconference.com
Congressional Black Caucus, Annual Leadership Conference – http://www.alc2007.com
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.