The Law of American Indians Posts
On the second-to-last day of the 2021-22 term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Oklahoma — and all other states — possesses concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government over crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country, wiping away centuries of tradition and practice.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas resolves a longstanding dispute about the ability of Texas to control gambling on the lands of two of the Native American tribes that reside there. The answer the court gave was a stern rebuke, vitiating the plenary control that lower-court decisions had granted the state for more than a quarter of a century
Taking Stock: Open Questions and Unfinished Business Under VAWA Amendments to the Indian Civil Rights Act
This Article analyzes whether the presence or absence of special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction has any bearing on a Tribal court’s power to hear and resolve VAWA 2013 cases. It also explores whether the existence of these facts and circumstance can be resolved as a matter of law by a court or whether they are elements that must be submitted to a jury.
A Wall Street Journal article explores the aftermath of McGirt v. Oklahoma, a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled a large part of eastern Oklahoma as a Native American reservation.
Is the Court of Indian Offenses of Ute Mountain Ute Agency a Federal Agency for Purposes of the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause? (Denezpi v. United States, Docket 20-7622)
This case examines the application of the U.S. Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause, sits within the intersection of tribal courts, federal Indian law, and federal criminal law and jurisdiction. Essentially, the question is whether a Native American Indian can be punished twice for the same conduct—first in tribal court and a second time in federal court.
This article examines the history of the tribes in Texas, the litigation between the tribes and the state, and the legislative efforts which have attempted to rectify the exclusion of the tribes from the Indian Gaming Regulatory Agency.
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear Texas v. Haaland, a case seeking to overturn the Indian Child Welfare Act.
In Penobscot Nation v. Frey and United States v. Frey, two cases ask the Supreme Court to review an en banc decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit concerning authority over the Penobscot River in Maine. Both petitions detail the history of relationships between the Penobscot Nation and various governments, from Massachusetts colonists to the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and the Maine Implementing Act in the 1970s.
The symposium brought together leading experts in federal Indian law to discuss the Restatement and examine the Institute’s newly approved Restatement.
This article explores two consequences of tribes’ status as “states” and “nations” under international law during the early Republic.