Search

This Comment tells the story of how California's 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) has been applied in Owens Valley. Owens Valley, called Payahuunadu by the Native Paiute and Shoshone [...]

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1119 I. 1790: INDIGENOUS PRESENCE AND POWER 1122 II. INDIGENOUS CITIZENSHIP AND SUBJECTION 1130 CONCLUSION 1134 INTRODUCTION On November 9, 2022, Samantha Maltais, like many Indigenous [...], In 1790, the same year Congress limited naturalization to "free white persons," it also enacted the first Indian Trade and Intercourse Act. The Trade and Intercourse Act may have even stronger claims to "super statute" status than the Naturalization Act. Key provisions of the Trade and Intercourse Act remain in effect today, and the Act enshrined a tribal, federal, and state relationship that profoundly shapes modern law. Unlike the Naturalization Act, the Trade and Intercourse Act reflected the input of people of color: it responded to the demands of tribal nations and--to a degree--reflected tribal sovereignty. While Indigenous people could not naturalize in 1790, early laws and policies encouraged them to become citizens of the United States. Indigenous citizenship, however, was a tool of subjugation, designed to undermine tribal sovereignty and thereby increase White authority. This history is inconsistent with Chin and Finkelman's claim of a persistent vision of White citizenship, but it is consistent with allocation of citizenship as a tool of White power.

INTRODUCTION As water becomes scarcer across the arid west, many tribal governments face a growing threat from off-reservation water users, from suburban developments to expanding metropolises. (1) This situation is [...], Indian water rights settlements have been the primary mechanism to resolve water conflicts between tribal governments and state, municipal, and non-governmental parties. Although scholars have for decades roundly criticized settlements for their many shortcomings, this paper suggests that a combination of forces has altered the conditions for Indian water rights settlements. Settlement remains a difficult process, but a new moment for Indian water rights settlement may have arrived. This paper explains how political conditions have changed and makes a novel legal argument to supply a strategy for tribal governments to advance their bargaining position in settlement discussions.

September 22, 2022 Thank you so much for that lovely introduction, Dean Carey, and for your exemplary leadership. I also want to recognize my dear friend and mentor Professor Carol [...]

This is a transcript of a discussion hosted by the Indian Legal Program, and the Indian Gaming and Tribal Self-Governance Programs, at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona [...]

INTRODUCTION I. GOVERNMENTAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND BUSINESS ENTITIES A. Sovereign Immunity B. United States Economic Activities and Immunity C. State Economic Activities and Immunity II. INDIAN NATIONS' SOVEREIGNTY, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, [...], American Indian reservations are the poorest parts of the United States, and a higher percentage of Indian families across the country live below the poverty line than any other ethnic or racial sector. Indian nations and Indian peoples also suffer from the highest unemployment rates in the country and have the highest substandard housing rates. The vast majority of the over three hundred Indian reservations and the Alaska Native villages do not have functioning economies. This lack of economic activity starves tribal governments of the tax revenues that governments need to function. In response, Indian nations create and operate business entities to bring jobs and income to Indian Country, improve the standard of living for their citizens, and earn profits to help fund their governments. As constitutionally recognized governments, Indian nations possess inherent sovereign powers, including sovereign immunity wherein they cannot be sued by anyone (except the United States) or in any court unless the tribe consents. Their sovereign rights, and especially sovereign immunity, assist Indian nations to be successful and profitable in their economic endeavors. In the last few decades, however, state and lower federal courts have interfered with tribal sovereign decisions and sovereign immunity. These courts have imposed onerous and even outrageous requirements on tribal governments that violate well-recognized principles of efficiency, profitability, and common sense. These court decisions are defeating the very reasons Indian nations operate business concerns. In contrast, the United States and the states engage in a wide array of economic activities and they benefit from the protections of sovereign immunity. Those governments operate almost totally free of judicial restraints on how they establish, manage, and operate their businesses. Indian nations and their legislative and executive decisions should be treated with the same judicial respect and deference that state and federal legislative and executive branches receive. This Article describes and critiques the improper approach many state and lower federal courts have taken in forcing tribal governments to create, manage, and operate their economic entities. The Article argues that Indian nations, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Congress should not tolerate this judicial overreach and infringement on the sovereign rights of Native governments. The Article briefly lays out four possible strategies Indian nations, Congress, and the Supreme Court should consider to prevent this judicial activism. The very future of Indian Country as viable places where Indigenous governments, peoples, and cultures can survive and thrive is at issue.

I. INTRODUCTION Hunting and fishing contribute billions of dollars to the national economy.' Nationwide, ninety million United States residents participate in outdoor or wildlife-related activities, spending $145 billion annually. (2) [...], Inexperienced hunters often rely on hunting outfitters to guide a successful hunt. However, some hunting outfitters use illegal tactics, often in violation of the Lacey Act or Migratory Bird Treaty Act, to increase the take of game to satisfy client-hunters. The violations of these federal laws have high criminal consequences, often imposing significant fines and suspending hunting rights. Usually, the illegal act or acts of the hunting outfitter cause the client-hunter to leave with a criminal record. This imposition of criminal liability occurs for one main reason: it is extremely difficult for client-hunters to claim total ignorance about hunting outfitters' illegal acts. These criminal acts are difficult to conceal from the client-hunters, especially if the client-hunter returns to the outfitter for subsequent hunts, and thus provide an adequate basis for violations of the law. In addition to the risk of becoming a felon, hunting, especially with an inexperienced client-hunter in unfamiliar terrain, can be dangerous and lead to serious physical harm. Unfortunately, despite the hunting industry being one of South Dakota's primary sources of income, South Dakota has few regulations relating to the hunting outfitter business. This comment will outline the dangers to clienthunters, both criminally and in the context of health and safety, and explain why all states, including South Dakota, must regulate this industry to protect the clienthunters, lawfully operating outfitters, and the value generated by wildlife within the state.