Federal/Tribal Indian Law

Table of Contents

1) Outlines of Indian Law
2) Research Tools
3) Government Documents
4) Tribal Materials
5) State Materials California
6) U.S. Federal Materials
7) Books, Treatises, Compilations
8) Law Reviews
9) Special Topics
10) Tribal Practice Materials: California

11) Tribal Sovereignty
12) Tribal Land
13) Reservation Diminishment
14) Federal Recognition
15) Gaming
16) Tribal Membership
17) Child & Adult Protection
18) Environmental Challenges
19) Intellectual Property

——————————————————————————————-

1) Outlines of Indian Law

a) Conference of Western Attorneys General American Indian Law Deskbook 2017 ed. Table of Contents. http://tinyurl.com/2017-TOC-Ind-Law-Deskbook

b) Idaho, University of
http://tinyurl.com/Outline-Idaho

c) Lewis & Clark University
http://tinyurl.com/Outline-Lewis-Clark

d) Revolvy cf. Wikipedia, infra.
http://tinyurl.com/outline-Revolvy

e) Wikipedia
http://tinyurl.com/Outline-Wikipedia

f) Getches, David H.; Wilkinson, Charles F.; Williams, Robert A. Jr.; and Fletcher, Matthew L.M., http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/aprci/213
"Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law" (2011). Table of Contents. http://tinyurl.com/Getches-cases-materials

2) Research Tools

a) AMERICAN INDIAN TERRITORIALITY an Online Research Guide [Edition of Oct. 17, ‘03][1] http://thorpe.ou.edu/treatises/AITExtra.pdf
This is an excellent guide and portrayal of Indian land issues. Maps and charts show various land tenure regimens in Indian country.

b) Annotated Bibliography of Federal and Tribal Law: Print and Internet Sources http://thorpe.ou.edu/guide/IndianLawResearchGuide.pdf

c) Findlaw for Law Professionals
http://lp.findlaw.com

d) Google.com Google Guide Cheat Sheet http://www.googleguide.com/print/adv_op_ref.pdf

e) Google Scholar
http://scholar.google.com
Excellent source of any/all jurisdictions' cases and articles

f) Justia.com http://Justia.com
Federal and State cases and codes

g) Leagle.com
http://www.leagle.com/decisions
National, Regional, and State Reporters

h) LexisNexis.com $$

i) Westlaw.com $$

3) Government Documents

a) American Indian Policy Review 1977 vol. 1. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/pur1.32754050235575

b) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
https://www.cfda.gov/

c) Congressional Documents and Debates 1774-1875
https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html

i) Example: Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of Indians [1832 - 1833] …Removal and Subsistence of Indians http://tinyurl.com/correspondence-indian-removal

ii) J.H. Hook, Acting C.G.S. (commissary of general assistance) to Captain John B. Clarke U.S.A., Agent in removal, etc. Indians, Little Rock.
"[R]ations would be issued to slaves, the property of emigrating Indians ….The Indians and their slaves will be organized into companies of from fifty to one hundred …." vigilance in the discharge of the duties confided to your assistants, and kindness towards the Indians, are especially recommended, that the reports returned from the first emigrants may encourage rather than retard the spirit of emigration" p 512
http://tinyurl.com/Lter-fr-CGS-to-RemovalAgent

d) GSA National Desk Reference for Tribes and Tribal Organizations
http://tinyurl.com/GSA-Desk-Ref-Tribes

e) GPO Government Publishing Office
https://www.gpo.gov/

f) Catalog of Government Publications
https://catalog.gpo.gov/

g) Indian Claims Commission Decisions
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/icc/v01/v01toc.html

h) National Archives.
http://tinyurl.com/US-Nat-Archives
https://www.archives.gov/research/alic/reference/govt-docs.html

i) Powell, John Wesley FIRST ANNUAL REPORT BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY SECRETARY OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 1879-'80
http://tinyurl.com/Powell-1st-Rpt-BOE

j) United Nations

i) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
http://tinyurl.com/UN-DRIP
See also Echo-Hawk 2013 infra

ii) Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
G.A. Res. 217A (III), art. 22, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217A, (Dec. 10, 1948)
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

4) Tribal Materials

a) Native American Constitutions and Law Digitization Project
http://thorpe.ou.edu

b) Northwest Tribal Court System
https://www.nics.ws/

i) Tribal Court Appellate Opinions
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/NICS/
searchable e.g. "Hoopa" yields 109 results.

c) National Indian Law Library
http://www.narf.org/nill/index.html
Laws: Codes & Ordinances, Constitutions, Court Opinions , Court Rules, Compacts & Agreements, Treaties, Legal Histories

d) Tribal Justice. PBS Film
http://www.pbs.org/pov/tribaljustice/

e) O'Connor, Sandra D., Lessons from the Third Sovereign: Indian Tribal Courts, 33 Tulsa L. J. 1 (2013).
http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol33/iss1/

f) Intertribal Court of Southern California
http://www.sciljc.org/.

g) Tribal Court Clearing House.
http://www.tribalinstitute.org/lists/tribal_law.htm

i) Tribal Courts
http://tinyurl.com/Tribal-Courts

ii) Tribal Constitutions
http://tinyurl.com/Tribal-Constitutions

iii) Tribal Codes
http://tinyurl.com/Tribal-Codes

iv) Tribal Court Decisions
http://tinyurl.com/Tribal-Court-Decisions

v) Indian Law Reviews
http://tinyurl.com/Indian-Law-Reviews

vi) Traditional Law
http://tinyurl.com/Traditional-Law

vii) Tribal Federal Relations
http://tinyurl.com/Tribal-Federal-Relations

viii) Tribal State Relations
http://tinyurl.com/Tribal-State-Relations

ix) Tribal Law Enforcement
http://tinyurl.com/Tribal-Law-Enforcement

x) Tribal Jurisdiction
http://tinyurl.com/Tribal-Jurisdiction

xi) US v. Kirkaldie, 21 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1108 - Dist. Court, D. Montana 2014 http://tinyurl.com/Kirkaldie
'Tribal courts represent the frontline institutions to preserve the peace in Indian communities, to help resolve civil disputes among community members and businesses on Indian lands, and to ease the burden of an additional 1.6 million cases that would otherwise docket in federal court.

h) Tribal Common Law

i) Procedural.

(a) Robert D. Cooter and Wolfgang Fikentscher,[2] Indian Common Law: The Role of Custom in American Indian Tribal Courts (Part I of II), 46 Am. J. Comp. L. 287 (1998)
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/1029 ABSTRACT: Many American Indian Reservations have had modern tribal courts for at least 60 years. Have the distinctive social norms of Indians worked their way into judge made law, or are tribal courts much like state courts? Is there Indian common law? To answer these questions, we interviewed tribal judges on reservations throughout the West. We found distinctively Indian social norms, both substantial and procedural, pervading tribal courts., Many of these norms are specific to particular tribes and some are shared by many tribes. Indian common laws (in the plural) are tribe-specific, so there is a comparative law of Indian common law. Applying the rules of conflict of laws requires knowledge of Indian common laws.

ii) Substantive.

(a) Robert D. Cooter and Wolfgang Fikentscher, Indian Common Law: The Role of Custom in American Indian Tribal Courts (Part II of II), 46 Am. J. Comp. L. 509 (1998),
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/1030

(b) Code vs common law.
Robert D. Cooter and Wolfgang Fikentscher, American Indian Law Codes: Pragmatic Law and Tribal Identity, 56 Am. J. Comp. L. 29 (2008) http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/1205
"The United States has recognized the power of American Indian tribes to make laws at least since 1934. Most tribes, however, did not write down many of their laws until the 1960s. Written laws have subsequently accumulated in well-organized codes, but scholars have not previously researched them. Using written materials and interviews with tribal officials, we describe the scope, motivation, and interpretation of tribal codes. With respect to scope, we found nine main types of codes that cover almost all fields of law over which tribes have jurisdiction. Few tribes have all nine types of codes. Tribes have internal and external motivations for codifying. Internal motivations include preserving culture, maintaining social order, and encouraging economic development. Financial incentives and demands for transparency supply outside motivation. Tribal officials interpret codes pragmatically, which resembles interpretation of codes in continental Europe. Finally, we note that law and justice sometimes require state or federal courts to use a tribal code to decide a case, but they seldom do so, which undermines tribal power and identity"

(d) Hoopa Valley Tribal Code
https://www.hoopa-nsn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Title02-Civil-Actions_10_02_2008.pdf
2.1.05 Traditional Tribal Law. The traditional law of the Hoopa Valley Tribe is the common law of the Tribe tantamount to the written law of the Tribe and will be applied in all situations where it is relevant to the issues raised in an action before the Court. The Court will first look to the laws adopted by the Tribe and to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. If no written Tribal law applies to a cause of action or the issues involved in an action, the Court will look to the Tribe's traditional law and if it finds the traditional law to be applicable in settling the dispute, will base its decision on traditional Tribal law.

(e) Navajo Tribal Court Decisions
http://www.navajocourts.org/distcourtdecisions.htm

(f) Hopi Appellate Court

(i) Tawahongva v Scott et al 2013
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5iJZdagMNhTWW50RWpJN01Qa28/view
Dispute between competing factions as to leadership of Hotevilla village. Appellate court determines Hopi Tribal Court has no jurisdiction over Village sovereign issues.

(ii) Hopi Tribe v Tawahongva 2013
Medicine man's Witchcraft defense to sexual assault failed for showing relevance of custom of witchcraft to the issue of culpability.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5iJZdagMNhTLVRSbXFwMGY3Q0U/view

(iii) Sekakaku v Sekakaku 2007
Divorce court erred in granting divorce in absence of respondent. Court ordered to rehear case using tribal custom to determine distribution of property. i.e. Wife owns everything except husbands personalty necessary for farming
http://tinyurl.com/sekakuku

(iv) Mahkewa v Mahkewa 2004
http://tinyurl.com/Makhewa
Divorce distribution of marital property. appellant

(v) Ross v Sulu. 1991 Trespass
Hopi Butterfly Badger Clan vs Tewa Kachina Clan both of First Mesa Villages. Tribal court lacks jurisdiction over inter-clan intra-village disputes but can hear enforcement action.
http://tinyurl.com/Ross-v-sulu

5) California: Tribal State/Federal/Tribal Nexus

a) California Indian Law (google)
http://tinyurl.com/Cal-Ind-Law-Google

b) Tribal Courts

i) California Tribal Communities
http://www.courts.ca.gov/3066.htm

ii) Tribal/State Programs
http://www.courts.ca.gov/programs-tribal.htm

iii) Tribal Court-State Court Forum
http://www.courts.ca.gov/3065.htm

iv) About California Tribal Courts
http://www.courts.ca.gov/14400.htm

v) Tribal Justice Systems
http://www.courts.ca.gov/3064.htm

vi) California Tribal Court List
http://www.courts.ca.gov/14400.htm

c) Jurisdiction in California Indian Country:

i) Public Law 280 Cal DOT
http://tinyurl.com/280-cal-dot

ii) 18 U.S. Code § 1162 - State jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the Indian country https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1162

iii) California Courts Document.

(a) Text Version
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Jurisdiction_in_California_Indian_Country.pdf

(b) Slide Show Version
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Jurisdiction-in-California-Indian-Country.pdf}

iv) Indian Criminal Jurisdiction (cases)
http://tinyurl.com/Cal-Indian-CrimJur

d) Selected Issue Areas see (9) below

i) Child Protection/Welfare

ii) Tribal Membership: Enrollment/Disenrollment

iii) Family Violence

iv) Gaming

v) Environmental

6) U.S. Federal Materials

a) Executive Branch

i) The Whitehouse
https://www.whitehouse.gov/

(a) Trump Tweets http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/archive

(b) Presidential Documents Proclamations, Executive Orders, Signing Statements, etc.
Note: search engine is down-scroll left column at: http://presidency.proxied.lsit.ucsb.edu/index_docs.php
Search term, e.g. <Indian NOT Indiana Indianapolis>

ii) Administrative Law

(a) Rulemaking

(i) Federal Register
https://www.federalregister.gov/

(ii) Code of Federal Regulations https://www.ecfr.gov/

(b) Administrative Decisions

(i) Various Departments
http://tinyurl.com/Admin-Decisions
Example decision: re: Spanish colonial land grant to Sandia Pueblo http://tinyurl.com/Sandia-Land

(ii) Interior Board of Indian Appeals http://tinyurl.com/DOI-Indian-Appeals

(iii) Office of Solicitors Opinion

1. 1917-1974
http://thorpe.ou.edu/solicitor.html

2. 1993 - Present
http://tinyurl.com/BIA-Sol-Opp-1993-2017

(i) Health and Human Services
https://www.hhs.gov/

a. Indian Health Service
https://www.ihs.gov/

b. Administration for Native Americans https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ana

(ii) Housing and Urban Development
http://hud.gov

1. Office of Native American Programs
http://tinyurl.com/HUD-Indian-Programs-ONAP

(iii) Interior
https://www.doi.gov/

1. Bureau of Indian Affairs
https://www.bia.gov/

a. Indian Affairs Directives, Manuals, and Policy Guides Policy
https://www.bia.gov/policy-forms/handbooks

b. Asst Secy Indian Affairs …
https://www.bia.gov/as-ia
"... assists and supports the Secretary of the Interior in fulfilling the United States’ trust responsibility to the Federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages and individual Indian trust beneficiaries, as well as in maintaining the Federal-Tribal government-to-government relationship e.g. Gaming, tribal recognition, energy, technology, internet, etc."

c. Office of Fed Acknowledgment.
https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa

i. Federal Acknowledgment of American Indian Tribes (25 CFR Part 83)
http://tinyurl.com/FedRecog

ii. Guidelines, Precedent Manual
http://tinyurl.com/FedAckGuide

iii. Recent Acknowledgement Actions http://tinyurl.com/Recent-Actions

2. Bureau of Indian Education
https://www.bie.edu/

3. Indian Arts and Crafts Board https:/www.doi.gov/iacb

4. Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations https://www.doi.gov/buybackprogram

5. Office of Special Trustee for American Indians
https://www.doi.gov/ost/

6. Secretary's Indian Water Rights Office
https://www.doi.gov/siwro

(iv) Justice
https://www.justice.gov

1. Community Relations Service http://tinyurl.com/DOJ-CRS
Community Relations Services provides mediation and conflict resolution services to tribal governments, law enforcement and community on and off the reservation, when community tensions arise over racial or ethnic issues.

2. Tribal Communities Program https://www.justice.gov/crs/who-we-work-with/tribal-groups

3. Office of Inspector General https://oig.justice.gov/

4. Office of Tribal Justice
https://www.justice.gov/otj

5. Offices of the United States Attorneys
Search? > Indian
http://tinyurl.com/USAttys-Indian

b) Legislative Branch

i) Congress

(a) House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/

1. House Committee on Natural Resources: Indian, Insular & Alaska Native Affairs.
http://tinyurl.com/House-Ind-Affairs

(b) Senate
https://www.senate.gov/

1. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. https://www.indian.senate.gov/

a. 2002 Senate Hearing 107-338 RULINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AS THEY AFFECT THE POWERS AND AUTHORITIES OF THE INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS. US Gov't Printing Office http://tinyurl.com/sen-ind-aff-107-338

ii) All Statutes at Large
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/sal.htm

iii) U.S Code
http://uscode.house.gov/

(a) Popular Names. Indian Acts of Congress
>> LINK doc LINK pdf

(b) Titles with "Indian" content >> LINK

(i) Title 18 Crimes Chapter 53 Indians
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-53

1. "Indian country," as defined at 18U.S.C.§ 1151, includes "all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation."

(i) Indian Affairs Authorization Statutes

1. 25 U.S.C. 13 (The Snyder Act of November 2, 1921), 42 Stat. 208, Pub.L. 67-85; 90 Stat. 2233, Pub.L. 94-482.

2. 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq. (The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934), 48 Stat. 984, Pub.L. 73-383; Pub.L. 103-263.

3. 25 U.S.C. 450 (The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act), 88 Stat. 2203, Pub.L. 93-638, Pub.L. 100-472; 102 Stat. 2285, Pub.L. 103-413.

4. 25 U.S.C. 452 (The Johnson-O'Malley Act of April 16, 1934), 48 Stat. 596, Pub.L. 73-167; Pub.L. 103-332.

iv) Foundational Documents, Statutes, & Treaties

(a) Declaration of Independence 1776 1 Stat 1
http://tinyurl.com/decla-ind-1-stat-1
… "[The King of Great Britain] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

(b) Articles of Confederation 1778 1 Stat 4
http://tinyurl.com/1-stat-4-art-of-confed
No state shall engage in any war without the consent of the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such state, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay, till the united states in congress assembled can be consulted. Art.VI, § 5

(c) Treaty of Paris 1783 "The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783" (between England and the new United States). Public Statutes at Large Vol VIII, 1867 p 80 ff http://tinyurl.com/1783US-Brit-Treaty
Printable: http://tinyurl.com/1783-Treaty-of-Paris

(i) About the Treaty of Paris. Library of Congress Materials and Analysis https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/paris.html

(d) Northwest Ordinance of 1787
http://tinyurl.com/Nortwest-Ordinance-1787
"An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States North West of the River Ohio," …was adopted by the Confederation Congress on July 13, 1787. Also known as the Ordinance of 1787, the Northwest Ordinance established a government for the Northwest Territory, outlined the process for admitting a new state to the Union, and guaranteed that newly created states would be equal to the original thirteen states. Considered one of the most important legislative acts of the Confederation Congress, the Northwest Ordinance also protected civil liberties and outlawed slavery in the new territories.

(e) U. S. Constitution 1787 1 Stat 10
http://tinyurl.com/1-stat-10-US-Cons

(i) Art 1, Sec 2. Cl 3.
http://tinyurl.com/Indians-not-taxed
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their numbers … excluding Indians not taxed…."

(ii) Art I, Sec 8, Cl. 3 Commerce.
Power * * * To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

1. Annotation: "Indian Commerce Clause"
http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation35.html

(iii) Art, I, Sec 8, Cl. 11 War Powers [Congress]
The Congress shall have power … To declare war…

1. Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13 (1990),
http://tinyurl.com/Chomsky-War-Powers

(iv) Art II, Sec 2, Cl. 2 Treaty Power
http://tinyurl.com/Treaty-power
[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

(f) Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790
1 Stat 137
http://tinyurl.com/1-stat-137-Indian-Trade-1790

(g) Indian Removal Act of 1830 4 Stat 411-412
"An act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any pf the states of territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi." http://tinyurl.com/1830-Indian-Removal-Act

(h) Indian Appropriations Act of 1871
End of Indian Treaty era.
http://tinyurl.com/end-of-treaty-era Hidden in an obscure clause in a large appropriations statute, it ends treaty-making by President and Senate. Hereafter negotiations are by Congressional legislation i.e. President, House, and Senate--
Act of March 3, 1871 "No Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty " 16 Stat 566, 25 USC § 71 .

(i) 1887 General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) "An act to provide for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians on the various reservations…."
24 Stat 388

(j) Indian Delegation Act of Aug 8, 1946; Secy of Interior delegates authority to Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
Pub. L. 79-687, 60 Stat 939 http://legisworks.org/sal/60/stats/STATUTE-60-Pg939.pdf
"One of the most pernicious transfers of authority within the executive branch …" Deloria and Wilkins 1999:41

(k) Indian Claims Commission Act of Aug. 13, 1946. 60 Stat. 1049
http://tinyurl.com/IndClaimsComn

(i) Indian Claims Commission Decisions
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/icc/v01/v01toc.html

1. E.g. Pueblo Land Claims approved 11 stat 374
http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=11&page=374

(l) Termination- H. Con. Res. 108
67 Stat. B132 (Aug 1, 1953)
"…the policy of Congress, as rapidly as possible, … to end their status as wards of the United States…."
http://tinyurl.com/House-Res108

(m) Treaties

1. Annotation: Indian Treaties
http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation11.htm#5

2. Prucha, Francis Paulo. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly Berkeley, Univ of Cal Press
http://tinyur.com/Prucha-Treaties

3. Treaties Kappler's compilation
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler
http://thorpe.ou.edu/treaties.html

4. Indian Treaties Volume VII Statutes at Large
1778 Delaware à 1842 Sac and Fox
http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html
http://tinyurl.com/Treaties-vol-VII-Stats

5. List of Indian Treaties.
http://tinyurl.com/List-of-Treaties

6. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties
https://shareok.org/handle/11244/10466

7. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 9 Stat 922
http://tinyurl.com/treaty-guad-hidal
Ends war with Mexico. Transfers lands to USA. Art XI promises incursions by savages will be forcibly restrained, etc. Transfers Indian Lands to US.

c) Judicial Branch

i) Judicial Toolkit on Indian Law: An Overview of Key Federal Indian Law Cases Prepared by Judge Joseph J. Wiseman[3]
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Key-Federal-Indian-Law-Cases.pdf

ii) Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/

(a) Current Opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx

(b) Supreme Court Key Indian Cases

(i) Beecher v Weatherbee 95 US 517 (1877)
http://tinyurl.com/Beecher-v-Weatherbee-1877
It is to be presumed that in this matter the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people in their treatment of an ignorant and dependent race. 525
Congress undoubtedly expected that at no distant day the State would be settled by white people, and the semi-barbarous condition of the Indian tribes would give place to the higher civilization of our race. 526

(ii) California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 480 US 202, 107 S. Ct. 1083, 94 L. Ed. 2d 244 (1987)
http://tinyurl.com/Cabazon-1987

(iii) Cappaert v. United States ,426 U.S. 128, 138, 96 S.Ct. 2062, 48 L.Ed.2d 523 (1976)
http://tinyurl.com/Cappaert-v-United-States
"[W]hen the Federal Government withdraws its land from the public domain and reserves it for a federal purpose, the Government, by implication, reserves appurtenant water then unappropriated to the extent needed to accomplish the purpose of the reservation." 138

(iv) Carcieri v Salazar, 555 U.S. 379, 129 S.Ct. 1058 (2009)
http://tinyurl.com/Caarcieri-v-Salazar
"Now" means "then."
Thomas J.: "Here, whether the Secretary has authority to take the parcel into trust depends on whether the Narragansetts are members of a "recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction," which, in turn, depends on whether "now" refers to 1998, when the Secretary accepted the parcel into trust, or 1934, when Congress enacted the IRA. The ordinary meaning of "now," as understood at the time of enactment, was at "the present time; at this moment; at the time of speaking." That definition is consistent with interpretations given "now" by this Court both before and after the IRA's passage." 1059

(v) Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 20 U.S. 1 (1831)
http://tinyurl.com/Cherokee-Georgia
"Domestic dependent nations"
"Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and, heretofore, unquestioned right to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government; yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may, more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian." 17

(vi) Duro v Reina, Chief of Police 495 U.S. 676 (1990)
http://tinyurl.com/Duro-v-Reina-1990
"We address in this case whether an Indian tribe may assert criminal jurisdiction over a defendant who is an Indian but not a tribal member. We hold that the retained sovereignty of the tribe as a political and social organization to govern its own affairs does not include the authority to impose criminal sanctions against a citizen outside its own membership.

(vii) Fletcher v Peck 10 U.S. 87 (1810) 6 Cranch 87
http://tinyurl.com/Fletcher-v-Peck

(viii) Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823)
http://tinyurl.com/Johnson-McIntosh
"Discovery Doctrine"
"The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independence. … discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession." 573

(ix) Jones v Meehan 1899 175 US 1
http://tinyurl.com/1899JonesvMeehan
"A treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe must be construed not according to the technical meaning of its words to learned lawyers, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians." 175 US 1 (1899)

(x) Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock 187 US 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 - Supreme Court, 1903 -
http://tinyurl.com/LoneWolf-v-Hitchcock-1903
"Plenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised by Congress from the beginning, and the power has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government. 186

(xi) "Marshall Trilogy" (see also Law Reviews supra)

1. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 20 U.S. 1 (1831)
http://tinyurl.com/Cherokee-Georgia
"Domestic dependent nations"

2. Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823)
http://tinyurl.com/Johnson-McIntosh
"Discovery Doctrine"

a. Glenn Morris[4], Esq. How Columbus Day harms American Indians. http://tinyurl.com/Morris-on-Columbus-day
“Johnson v. M’Intosh is the opinion upon which the entirety of federal Indian law (and U.S. property law) is constructed. Every destructive opinion by the Supreme Court, every destructive policy of Congress or the president to this day, is made possible because of Johnson v. M’Intosh."

3. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U S. 515 (1832)
http://tinyurl.com/Worcester-Georgia
"Indian Commerce"

(xii) Montana v. United States 450 US 544 (1981)
http://tinyurl.com/Montana-v-US-1981
"This case concerns the sources and scope of the power of an Indian tribe to regulate hunting and fishing by non-Indians on lands within its reservation owned in fee simple by non-Indians. Relying on its purported ownership of the bed of the Big Horn River, on the treaties which created its reservation, and on its inherent power as a sovereign, the Crow Tribe of Montana claims the authority to prohibit all hunting and fishing by nonmembers of the Tribe on non-Indian property within reservation boundaries."

(xiii) Nevada v Hicks. 2001 533 US 353
http://tinyurl.com/2001-Nevada-v-Hicks
"This case presents the question whether a tribal court may assert jurisdiction over civil claims against state officials who entered tribal land to execute a search warrant against a tribe member suspected of having violated state law outside the reservation."

(xiv) Oliphant v Suquamish Tribe (1978)
435 US 191, 98 S. Ct. 1011, 55 L. Ed. 2d 209
http://tinyurl.com/oliphant-1978
"[E]ven ignoring treaty provisions and congressional policy, Indians do not have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians absent affirmative delegation of such power by Congress." 208

(xv) Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 US 49 (1978)
http://tinyurl.com/Martinez-SantaClara-1978
Tribes make membership rules. P 79 fn 32
Tribal membership rule favoring "traditional values of patriarchy" denied membership to children of Santa Clara woman married to non-member but allows membership to children of man married to non-member. Martinez sought declarative relief and injunction against tribe for discrimination per ICRA. Held: ICRA civil rights act does not authorize suit against tribal officers.
"Creation of a federal of action for the enforcement of rights created in Title I, however useful it might be in securing compliance with § 1302, plainly would be at odds with the congressional goal of protecting tribal self-government." 64

(xvi) Sherrill, City of v Oneida Indian Nation of NY, 544 US 197 (2005)
http://tinyurl.com/Sherill-v-Oneida-2005
In sum, the question of damages for the Tribe's ancient dispossession is not at issue in this case, and we therefore do not disturb our holding in Oneida II. However, the distance from 1805 to the present day, the Oneidas' long delay in seeking equitable relief against New York or its local units, and developments in the city of Sherrill spanning several generations, evoke the doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, and render inequitable the piecemeal shift in governance this suit seeks unilaterally to initiate. 221 Remanded to 2d Circuit Ct of App.

(xvii) United States v. Wheeler, 435 US 313 (1978)
http://tinyurl.com/US-v-Wheeler-435-us-313
Tribal courts are separate sovereigns thus double jeopardy does not prevent trial at both tribal and federal courts.

(xviii) US v Kagama 118 U.S. 375 (1886)
http://tinyurl.com/Kagama
"[T]his power of Congress to organize territorial governments, and make laws for their inhabitants, arises not so much from the clause in the Constitution in regard to disposing of and making rules and regulations concerning the Territory and other property of the United States, as from the ownership of the country in which the Territories are, and the right of exclusive sovereignty which must exist in the National Government, and can be found nowhere else." 380

(xix) US v Lara 541 U.S. 193 (2004)
http://tinyurl.com/US-v-Lara
Double jeopardy? Is tribal power to prosecute crime "inherent" or "delegated" by Congress? See esp. Thomas concurrence.

(xx) Williams v. Lee 358 US 217, 79 S. Ct. 269
http://tinyurl.com/Williams-v-Lee-1959

1. Williams v. Lee 319 P. 2d 998, 83 Ariz. 241 - Ariz: Supreme Court, 1958
http://tinyurl.com/AZ-Wms-v-Lee

(xxi) Winters v United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908)
http://tinyurl.com/1908-Winters-v-US

(xxii) Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U S. 515 (1832)
http://tinyurl.com/Worcester-Georgia
"By the constitution, the regulation of commerce among the Indian tribes is given to congress. This power must be considered as exclusively vested in congress, as the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to coin money, to 581*581 establish post offices, and to declare war. It is enumerated in the same section, and belongs to the same class of powers."

(i) Pueblo of Jemez v. US, 790 F. 3d 1143 - Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 2015
http://tinyurl.com/Jemez-v-US-2015
Excellent analysis of Spanish colonial law as applied to Indians of Southwest. Citing Johnson v M'Intosh (1823)

(ii) Williams v. Gover 490 F.3d 785 (2007) http://tinyurl.com/Williams-v-Gover
In 1987, California's Mooretown Indian Rancheria adopted constitution limiting membership to descendants of the four to whom the rancheria was distributed upon federal termination in 1959. Other long-time Indian residents of the rancheria were "squeezed out" and were classified as "adoptees" and ineligible for tribal benefits. These were then plaintiffs in suit against BIA for promulgating this rule.
Ct held that "Under Santa Clara Pueblo l[5] Mooretown Rancheria had the power to squeeze the plaintiffs out, because it has the power to define its own membership. It did not need the BIA's permission and did not ask for it, and the BIA never purported to tell it how to define its membership. 790

(d) District Courts (Ninth Circuit California District Courts) http://tinyurl.com/9thCir-Cal-DistCts-Indians

(i) Indian Gaming Related Cases-Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. California, 147 F. Supp 2d 1011 (2001) U.S. District Ct. N.D. California.
http://tinyurl.com/Gaming-Cases-v-California-2001
Under IGRA, what is State's duty to negotiate compact for Class III gaming?

7) Books, Treatises, Compilations

a) Aleinikoff, T. Alexander 2002 Semblances of Sovereignty: The Constitution, the State, and American Citizenship. Harvard Univ Press
http://tinyurl.com/Semblances-of-Sovereignty
Critique of plenary power doctrine asserting that the plenary power doctrine is unconstitutional given Marshall's opinion in Worcester that Indians are independent and sovereign.

b) Canby, William C. Jr.,2014 American Indian Law in a Nutshell. 6th Edition.
http://tinyurl.com/Canby-2014
This is an essential resource-- no mere "nutshell."

c) Chomsky, Carol 1990 The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13 (1990),
http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/226.

d) Conference of Western Attorneys General 2017 ed. American Indian Law Deskbook 2017 ed.
http://tinyurl.com/Am-Ind-Law-Desk-2017
"[A] concise, direct, and easy-to-understand handbook on Indian law. Indian law is a dynamic, ever-evolving field of law that overlaps other areas of the law as tribes expand their economic and political reach in our society.

e) Cohen, Felix S. 1942 [the original] Handbook of Federal Indian Law.

i) Univ of Okla (thorpe.ou.edu)
http://tinyurl.com/Cohen-1942

ii) ERIC (with foreword, biography, and bibliography)
http://tinyurl.com/Cohen-1942-ERIC

f) Cohen's 2012 Hand Book of Federal Indian Law. See Newton and Anderson infra.
http://tinyurl.com/2012-Cohen-IndLaw

g) Deloria, Vine, Jr., 1969 Custer Died for Your Sins: an Indian Manifesto. New York: Macmillan
http://tinyurl.com/Deloria-Custer-Sins

h) Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1973 God is Red: A Native View of Religion. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Pub.
http://tinyurl.com/Deloria-God-is-Red

i) Deloria, Vine Jr. and David E. Wilkins 1999 Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations. Austin, Univ of Texas Press.
http://tinyurl.com/Deloria-Wilkens-Tribes-treatie

j) Echo-Hawk, Walter. 2012. In the Courts of the Conqueror: The 10 Worst Indian Law Cases Ever Decided (Fulcrum Press) http://tinyurl.com/Echohawk-10WorstCases

(a) How the Indians Lost Legal Title to America.
Johnson v M'Intosh 21 US 543 (1823)
http://tinyurl.com/johnson-v-m-intosh-1823

(b) Shutting the Courthouse Doors.
Cherokee Nation v Georgia 30 US 1, 8 L. Ed. 25, 8 L. Ed. 2d 25 (1831)
http://tinyurl.com/cherokee-georgia-1831

(c) Were the Indian Wars Legal?
Connors v United States and Cheyenne Indians 30 C. Cl.317 (1898), 1800 WL 2047 (Ct. Cl.), aff'd 180 US 271 (1901)
http://tinyurl.com/connorsvUS-1901

(d) Breaking the Treaties.
Lone Wolf v Hitchcock, 187 US 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903)
http://tinyurl.com/LoneWolf-Hitchcock-1903

(e) Rule by Guardianship.
United States v Sandoval, 231 US 28 (1913)
http://tinyurl.com/US-Sandoval-1913

(f) Taking the Kids. In re: Adoption of John Doe v Heim, 89 NM 606, 555 P2d 906 (1976).
http://tinyurl.com/Doe-Heim-1976

(g) Taking the Dead.
Wana the Bear v Community Construction. 128 Cal.App.3d 536 (1982), 180 Cal.Rptr. 423.
http://tinyurl.com/WanaBear-CommConst-1982

(h) Taking the Religion.
Employment Division Oregon v Smith 494 US 872, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1990)
http://tinyurl.com/Employ-Smith

(i) Taking the Holy Places.
Lyng v Northwest Indian Cemetery Association, 485 US 439, 108 S. Ct. 1319, 99 L. Ed. 2d 534 (1988), http://tinyurl.com/NWIndCem-1988

(j) Confiscating Indigenous Habitat.
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v United States. 348 US 272, 75 S. Ct. 313, 99 L. Ed. 314 (1955).
http://tinyurl.com/Tee-Hit-Ton-1955

k) Echo-Hawk, Walter 2013 In the Light of Justice: The Rise of Human Rights in Native America and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
http://tinyurl.com/EchoHawk-Light-of-Justice

l) Fletcher, Matthew. 2011 American Indian Tribal Law. Wolters-Klewer. 823 pages
http://tinyurl.com/Fletcher-Tribal-Law

m) Fletcher, Matthew, 2017 Principles of Federal Indian Law (Concise Hornbook Series). West Academic
http://tinyurl.com/Fletcher-IndLaw-Hornbook

n) Green, Michael 1982 Politics of Indian Removal. U Nebraska Press
http://tinyurl.com/green-politics-indian-removal
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0803270151

o) Harjo, Suzan (ed.) Nation to Nation: Treaties between the United States & American Indian Nations. 2014 Smithsonian Institution.
http://tinyurl.com/Harjo-NationtoNation

p) Lawrence, Frank R, et al 2012 Navigating Tribal Law: Leading Lawyers on Understanding the Unique Procedures, Intricacies, and Challenges Involved with Tribal Cases (Inside the Minds) Dec 1, 2012
http://tinyurl.com/navigating-tribal-law

q) Llewellyn, Karl and Hoebel, E. Adamson 1941 The Cheyenne Way: Conflict and Case Law in Primitive Jurisprudence. Norman: Univ of Okla Press.
http://tinyurl.com/Cheyenne-Way

r) Merchant, Carolyn 2007 American Environmental History: An Introduction. New York. Columbian Univ Press.
http://tinyurl.com/American-Env-Hist

s) Miller, Mark, 2004 Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process. Lincoln: Univ of Nebraska Press.
http://tinyurl.com/Miller-Forgotten-Tribes

t) Mitchell, Donald Craig. 2016 Wampum: How Indian Tribes, the Mafia, and an Inattentive Congress Invented Indian Gaming and Created a $28 Billion Gambling Empire. New York: Overlook Press.
http://tinyurl.com/Wampum-Mitchell-1916

u) Newton and Anderson. Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law 2012 edition
http://tinyurl.com/2012-Cohen-IndLaw

v) Nichols, David Andrew. Engines of Diplomacy: Indian Trading Factories and the Negotiation of American Empire. 2016 U of No Carolina Press.
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=146962690X

w) Pevar, Stephen L. 2012 The Rights of Indians and Tribes, 4th edition. Oxford Univ Press.
http://tinyurl.com/Pevar-Indian-Rights

x) Pommersheim, Frank. 1997 Braid of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary Tribal Life. Berkeley. Univ of California Press.
http://tinyurl.com/Braid-of-Feathers

i) Turner, Allen C. Review of Braid of Feathers.
http://jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_2/turnervol2.htm

y) Pommersheim, Frank. 2016 Tribal Justice: Twenty-Five Years as a Tribal Appellate Justice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
http://tinyurl.com/Pommersheim-25-years|

z) Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984 The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln: Univ of Nebraska Press.
http://tinyurl.com/Prucha-Great-Father

aa) Prucha, Francis Paulo. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly Berkeley, Univ of Cal Press
http://tinyur.com/Prucha-Treaties

bb)Prucha, Francis Paul. Documents of United States Indian Policy. 3d ed. 2000. Lincoln. University of Nebraska Press. http://tinyurl.com/Prucha-Policy-docs

cc) Rawls, James R., 1984. Indians of California: The Changing Image. Norman: Univ of Okla Press.
http://tinyurl.com/Rawls-California-Indians

dd) Robertson, Lindsay. Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Lands. 2005 Oxford Press.
http://tinyurl.com/conquest-by-law

ee) Rossum, Ralph R. 2011 The Supreme Court and Tribal Gaming: California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.
http://tinyurl.com/Rossum-SpCt-TribalGaming

ff) Wilkins, David E, and Shelly Hulso Wilkins. 2017. Dismembered: Native Disenrollments and the Battle for Human Rights. Seattle & London. Univ of Washington Press.
http://tinyurl.com/Wilkins-Dismembered

gg) Wilkinson, Charles F. 1987 American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy Revised Ed. Edition Yale University Press.
http://tinyurl.com/wilkinson-indian-law

hh) Williams, Robert A., 2005 Like a Loaded Weapon: The Rehnquist Court, Indian Rights, and the Legal History of Racism in America. Minneapolis, Univ of Minn Press
http://tinyurl.com/Williams-Loaded-Weapon

8) Law Review Articles

a) Sources

i) American Indian Law Journal
http://tinyurl.com/AmIndLawJrnl

ii) American Indian Law Review http://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/
http://tinyurl.com/AmIndLawRev

iii) Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons (over 2000 articles) National Indian Law Library http://network.bepress.com/law/indian-and-aboriginal-law/

iv) National Indian Law Library (NARF)
http://tinyurl.com/NARF-NILL

v) Tribal Court Clearinghouse Compilation of Indian Law Reviews.
http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/reviews.htm

b) Selected Law Review Articles

i) Austin, Justice Raymond D.[6], 2011 American Indian Customary Law in the Modern Courts of American Indian Nations 11 Wyoming Law Rev. 351.
http://tinyurl.com/Indian-Custom-in-Court

ii) Babcock, Hope M.[7] 2010 The Stories We Tell, and Have Told, About Tribal Sovereignty: Legal Fictions at Their Most Pernicious, 55 Vill. L. Rev. 803-831 (2010)
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/941
"…I am not the first to examine the legal fictions in M’Intosh. See generally Jen Camden & Kathryn E. Fort, “Channeling Thought”: The Legacy of Legal Fictions From 1823, 33 AM. INDIAN L. REV. 77 (2009) (exposing many fictitious underpinnings of that case); see also Naomi Mezey, Law’s Visual Afterlife: Violence, Popular Culture and Translation Theory, in IMAGINING LEGALITY: WHERE LAW MEETS POPULAR CULTURE (forthcoming 2011) (manuscript at 2, 12, on file with author) (describing Marshall’s opinion in M’Intosh “in a real estate sense, a legal killing,” and commenting that “[p]erhaps nowhere is the sovereign’s legitimacy through might and the violence of legal interpretation so vividly instantiated than in John Marshall’s opinion in Johnson v. M’Intosh”)."

iii) Balkin, Jack M.[8] THE USE THAT THE FUTURE MAKES OF THE PAST: JOHN MARSHALL’S GREATNESS AND ITS LESSONS FOR TODAY’S SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.
43 Wm & Mary L. Rev.321 (2002)
http://tinyurl.com/Balkin-on-Marshall
" John Marshall’s greatness rests on a relatively small number of Supreme Court opinions, of which the most famous are Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland, and Gibbons v. Ogden. Beyond these are a number of less famous but also important cases, including his opinions in the Native American cases, Fletcher v. Peck, and Dartmouth College v. Woodward."

iv) Bobroff, Kenneth[9] 2001 Indian Law in Property: Johnson v M'Intosh and Beyond.
37 Tulsa L. Rev. 521 (2013)
http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol37/iss2/4

v) Brown, Margery 1983 Book Review of the 1982 Felix S. Cohen ’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law.
44 Montana Law Review 147
http://tinyurl.com/review-of-Cohen-1982

vi) Cohen, Felix S. "Original Indian Title." 28 Minn. L. Rev. 32 (1947)
http://tinyurl.com/CohenIndianTitle1947

vii) Fletcher, Matthew L.M.[10]

(a) THE IRON COLD OF THE MARSHALL TRILOGY 82 N.D. L. Rev. 627 2006
http://tinyurl.com/Fletcher-on-Marshall-Trilogy
"This essay is an attempt to reexamine the Trilogy for its continuing relevance to students of modem American Indian law. The law does not remain stagnant. The law of the Marshall Court is no longer the only word in federal Indian law. But the pedagogical value of the Marshall Trilogy goes far beyond the mere holdings of the cases."

(b) The Supreme Court's Indian Problem 59 Hastings L.J. 579 2007-2008
http://tinyurl.com/Fletcher-SCTsIndianProblem
"This Article asserts a new theory about why and how the Supreme Court accepts and decides its Indian law docket: the Court identifies an important constitutional concern embedded in a run-of-the-mill Indian law certiorari petition, grants certiorari, and then applies its decision making discretion to decide the "important" constitutional concern."

viii) Galinda, Gabriel S[11]. and Ryan D. Dreveskracht 2015 CURING THE TRIBAL DISENROLLMENT EPIDEMIC: IN SEARCH OF A REMEDY. 57 Ariz Law Rev 383
http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/57-2/57arizlrev383.pdf

ix) Getches, David H.[12] 1996 Conquering the Cultural Frontier: The New Subjectivism of the Supreme Court in Indian Law 84 Cal Law Review 1573
http://tinyurl.com/getche-84CalLawRev
"… the Court has assumed the job it formerly conceded to Congress, considering and weighing cases to reach results comporting with the Justices' subjective notions of what the Indian jurisdictional situation ought to be."

x) Heath, Joseph J.[13] 2017, THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN DISCOVERY: ITS FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE IN UNITED STATES INDIAN LAW AND THE NEED FOR ITS REPUDIATION AND REMOVAL
10 Albany Gov't Law Rev 112
http://tinyurl.com/Heath-Discovery
"The doctrine of discovery has continued to be the cornerstone of United States Indian law. A series of recent, disturbing decisions by the Supreme Court and some of the Circuit Courts of Appeal, over the last decade, have used the doctrine to further limit the rights of Indigenous peoples and nations."

xi) Kowalski, Tonya [14]A Tale of Two Sovereigns: Danger and Opportunity in Tribal-State Court Relations, 47 Tulsa L. Rev. 687 (2013). http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol47/iss3/8

xii) Martin, Ray 2017 Justice Scalia and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, 5 Am Ind L. J.
http://tinyurl.com/Scalia-Tonto
Abstract "In the last generation, the Supreme Court has changed the way that it interprets statutes that regulate Indian affairs. The Court has moved away from using legislative history and the Indian law canons of construction to aid in its interpretation of Indian law statutes, to relying on textualism and plain meaning."

xiii) Miller, Robert J.[15]2005-6 The Doctrine of Discovery in American Indian Law. 42 Idaho Law Review 1.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=721631
Abstract. The Article analyzes the international law principle the Doctrine of Discovery and how it came to be applied to American Indian tribes and incorporated into American colonial, state, and federal law to diminish tribal sovereign and real property rights. The Doctrine was primarily developed in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries to maximize European exploration and colonization in the New World. The Doctrine had its genesis in medieval, ethnocentric, religious, and even racial theories. Amazingly, the Doctrine is still an active part of American law today and legally infringes the real property, sovereign, and self-determination rights of American Indian tribes and their people.
... Additionally, the Article shines new light on the role the Doctrine played in President Thomas Jefferson's dispatch of the Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1803, and on the actual conduct of Lewis and Clark. The research shows conclusively that Jefferson understood the Doctrine and utilized Discovery principles against the native people and tribal nations in the Louisiana and Pacific Northwest Territories through the Lewis and Clark Expedition. In fact, the expedition was cited by the United States for more than three decades in political negotiations as justification for its Discovery claim to the Pacific Northwest. Jefferson intended that result.

xiv) O'Connor, Sandra D., Lessons from the Third Sovereign: Indian Tribal Courts, 33 Tulsa L. J. 1 (2013).
http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol33/iss1/

xv) Painter-Thorne, Suzianne D.[16] If You Build It, They Will Come: Preserving Tribal Sovereignty in the Face of Indian Casinos and the New Premium on Tribal Membership, 14 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 311, 345 (2010).
http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/4110.
Abstract: This Article considers recent disputes over membership decisions made by American Indian tribal governments. Since Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, Indian casinos have flourished on some tribal reservations. Some argue that the new wealth brought by casinos has increased fights over membership as tribes seek to expel current members or refuse to admit new members. It is difficult to discern whether there are more disputes over tribal enrollment as a consequence of gaming or whether such disputes are now more public because gaming has brought tribes to the forefront of U.S. culture. What is clear is that enrollment disputes are receiving increased attention, resulting in calls for some change to address what many perceive as a fundamental unfairness in tribal decision making. Aggrieved members’ attempts to resort to federal or state court are blocked due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, standing, and because of the tribes’ sovereign immunity. Activists and courts have sought to change this, seeking to curtail the tribes’ sovereign immunity, expand federal court jurisdiction to permit oversight, or otherwise impose U.S. law on tribal membership decisions. Scholars are divided, with some arguing for the abrogation of immunity or sovereignty, while others argue that the tribes’ decisions are sacrosanct. Still others argue over how the tribes should define membership—contending that it should be based on cultural identity, political participation, blood quantity, or even DNA. This Article argues that the focus should instead be on solutions that come from within the tribes. For too long the tribes have suffered from the imposition of legal and cultural norms that do not reflect their identity or culture. Because a tribe’s right to define its membership lies at the heart of its sovereignty, the solution is more, not less, sovereignty for the tribes. To remedy the impasse, I propose that tribes create separate independent judicial bodies, or an intertribal appellate court that would provide independent review of tribal membership decisions.

xvi) Pommersheim, Frank 1988 The Contextual Legitimacy of Adjudication in Tribal Courts and the Role of the Tribal Bar as an Interpretive Community: An Essay
18 N.M. L. Rev. 49 1988

xvii) Purdy, Jedediah 2007 Property and Empire: The Law of Imperialism in Johnson v. M’Intosh. 75 George Washington Law Review 329
http://tinyurl.com/Purdy-2007
Abstract ("Chief Justice's Marshall's opinion in Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.)543 (1823) has long been a puzzle, both in its doctrinal structure and in long, strange dicta which are both triumphal and elegiac. In this Essay, I show that the opinion becomes newly intelligible when read in the context of the law and theory of colonialism, concerned, like the case itself, with the expropriation of continents and relations between dominant and subject peoples. I examine several instances where the seeming incoherence of the opinion instead shows its debt to imperial jurisprudence, which rested on a distinction between two bodies of law: one governing relations between "civilized" nations, the other relations between "civilized" governments and the "imperfect sovereigns" of other nations. I then show how Marshall's long dicta reflect the then-prevalent view of the historical progress of societies from hunter-gatherer to commercial orders, with each stage corresponding to a particular set of property institutions. This historical theory lent intelligibility to the legal distinctions between "civilized" and "lesser" or "imperfect" sovereigns by claiming that the latter occupied earlier stages of development and that "civilized" nations were legally permitted to override the property institutions of "primitive" societies in order to induce progress. The dicta, then, provide the frame for the reasoning of this case, just as the theory of historical progress framed the jurisprudence of colonialism in general."

xviii) Resnik, Judith Multiple sovereignties: Indian Tribes, States, and the Federal Government Volume 79, Number 3 of JUDICATURE, the Journal of the American Judicature Society (1995)
http://www.tribalinstitute.org/articles/resnik1.htm

xix) Rice, G. William[17] 2009 The Indian Reorganization Act, The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and a Proposed Carcieri "Fix": Updating the Trust Land Acquisition Process. 45 Idaho L. Rev. 575 (2009).
http://tinyurl.com/IRA-DRIP-CarcieriFix

xx) Riley, Lorinda (2015) When a Tribal Entity Becomes a Nation: The Role of Politics in the Shifting Federal Recognition Regulations,
39 Am. Indian L. Rev. 451
http://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol39/iss2/2
Note: this is a well-researched, in-depth analysis of the changing criteria for recognition of an Indian group as a "Tribe."

xxi) Rolnick, Addie[18] 2016 Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction Beyond Citizenship and Blood
39 Am Ind L Rev. 337
http://tinyurl.com/Rolnick-Criminal-Jurisdiction

xxii) Singer, Joseph William[19] 2017 INDIAN TITLE: UNRAVELING THE RACIAL CONTEXT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, OR HOW TO STOP ENGAGING IN CONQUEST 10 Albany Government Law Review 1 (2017) http://tinyurl.com/Indian-Title-Harvard

xxiii) Singer, Joseph William[20]. Canons of Conquest: The Supreme Court's Attack on Tribal Sovereignty, 37 New Eng. L. Rev. 641 (2003).
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn3:HUL.InstRepos:3138486
Critique of Rehnquist Court's decisions in Nevada v Hicks and judicial erosion of tribal sovereignty.

xxiv) Speck, Frank, 1915 The Family Hunting Band as the Basis of Algonkian Social Organization American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1915), pp. 289-305 http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/660349.pdf

xxv) Steel, Michalyn, Plenary Power, Political Questions, and Sovereignty in Indian Affairs
63 UCLA L. Rev. 666 (2016)
http://tinyurl.com/Steel-Inherent-Sovereignty
"This Article proposes that the political question and plenary power doctrines should give Congress exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions of inherent tribal authority, or else tribes will continue to face a rigged coin toss in the courts. Courts should treat questions challenging inherent tribal authority similar to the way it treats questions challenging federal plenary power in Indian affairs: as political questions that do not present justiciable controversies. Thus, courts should presume that tribes have retained all inherent authority unless Congress has specifically and explicitly divested the tribe of a particular power. As a result, challenges by individuals who object to a tribe’s exercise of authority as being outside the scope of inherent authority would be declared nonjusticiable, political questions—that is, unless Congress has explicitly delineated the dimunition [sic] or affirmation of the authority in question.17 Tribal challenges to Congress’s ability to diminish inherent tribal authority would also continue to be treated as essentially political questions. This more consistent approach ultimately leaves the scope of inherent tribal authority in the hands of Congress." 672

xxvi) Tebben, Carol[21] AN AMERICAN TRIFEDERALISM BASED UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF TRIBAL NATIONS 5 U. Pa. J. Const. L., 318 (2002- 2003)
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=jcl

xxvii) Anthony F. C. Wallace, "Political Organization and Land Tenure among the Northeastern Indians, 1600-1830," Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13, no. 4 (Winter, 1957): 301-321. http://tinyurl.com/Wallace-Indian-Land-Tenure-NE

xxviii) Washburn, Kevin[22] K. 2017 WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS: THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF FEDERAL INDIAN POLICY 30 Harvard Law Review Forum 200
http://tinyurl.com/2017-Future-Ind-Pol-Washburn
"More and more, the federal government defers to tribal priorities and tribal decision-making. While this development has been positive for tribes, it has come at a cost."

xxix) Turner, Allen C. 1987-88 Evolution, Assimilation, and State Control of Gaming in Indian Country: Is California v. Cabazon an Assimilationist Wolf in Preemption Clothing? 24 Idaho Law Rev.317
http://tinyurl.com/Turner-Cabazon

xxx) Watson, Blake A. 2005 John Marshall and Indian Land Rights: A Historical Rejoinder to the Claim of Universal Recognition of the Doctrine of Discovery. 36 Seton Hall Law Rev 481
http://tinyurl.com/Johnson-rejoinder

xxxi) Williams, Robert A., Jr. [23]1987 Jefferson, the Norman Yoke, and American Indian Lands 29 Ariz. L. Rev. 165
http//tinyurl.com/Williiams-Norman-Yoke

9) Special Topics 2000-2018
13 Issues Facing Native People Beyond Mascots and Casinos
http://tinyurl.com/13-issues

10) Tribal Practice Materials: California

a) Tribal Law and Order Act https://www.justice.gov/tribal/tribal-law-and-order-act

b) Tips for Litigating in Native American Tribal Courts
https://www.law360.com/articles/635691/6-tips-for-litigating-in-native-american-tribal-courts

c) California Tribal Bar Admission

i) Quechan
http://tinyurl.com/QuechanBar

ii) San Manuel
http://tinyurl.com/San-Manuel-Atty-App

iii) Tulalip
http://tinyurl.com/TulalipBarApp

iv) Yurok
http://tinyurl.com/YurokBar

v) Southern California Indian Tribal Bar Association Court.

vi) Bar Application http://tinyurl.com/SoCalTribalBarApp

vii) Bar Member List http://tinyurl.com/SoCalTribalBarMembers

11) Tribal Sovereignty

a) Tribal Justice Systems (1977) American Indian Policy Review.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754050235575;view=2up;seq=170

b) US v. Kirkaldie, 21 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1108 - Dist. Court, D. Montana 2014 http://tinyurl.com/Kirkaldie
'Tribal courts represent the frontline institutions to preserve the peace in Indian communities, to help resolve civil disputes among community members and businesses on Indian lands, and to ease the burden of an additional 1.6 million cases that would otherwise docket in federal court. See Tribal Court and the Administration of Justice in Indian Country: Hearing Before the Sen. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 110th Cong. 9-10 (2008) (Statement of Hon. Roman J. Duran, First Vice President, Nat'l Am. Indian Court Judges Assoc.). The Supreme Court has acknowledged that "tribal courts are important mechanisms for protecting significant tribal interests." United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 332, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978). The due process that tribal courts provide to tribal citizens represents a sovereign prerogative'.1108

c) Painter-Thorne, Suzianne D.[24] If You Build It, They Will Come: Preserving Tribal Sovereignty in the Face of Indian Casinos and the New Premium on Tribal Membership, 14 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 311, 345 (2010).
http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/4110

d) Babcock, Hope M.[25] 2010 The Stories We Tell, and Have Told, About Tribal Sovereignty: Legal Fictions at Their Most Pernicious, 55 Vill. L. Rev. 803-831 (2010)
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/941

e) Singer, Joseph William.[26] Canons of Conquest: The Supreme Court's Attack on Tribal Sovereignty, 37 New Eng. L. Rev. 641 (2003).
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn3:HUL.InstRepos:3138486
Critique of Rehnquist Courts decisions in Nevada v Hicks and judicial erosion of tribal sovereignty.

f) Steel, Michalyn[27], Plenary Power, Political Questions, and Sovereignty in Indian Affairs
63 UCLA L. Rev. 666 (2016)
http://tinyurl.com/steel-sovereignty
"This Article proposes that the political question and plenary power doctrines should give Congress exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions of inherent tribal authority, or else tribes will continue to face a rigged coin toss in the courts. Courts should treat questions challenging inherent tribal authority similar to the way it treats questions challenging federal plenary power in Indian affairs: as political questions that do not present justiciable controversies. Thus, courts should presume that tribes have retained all inherent authority unless Congress has specifically and explicitly divested the tribe of a particular power. As a result, challenges by individuals who object to a tribe’s exercise of authority as being outside the scope of inherent authority would be declared nonjusticiable, political questions—that is, unless Congress has explicitly delineated the dimunition [sic] or affirmation of the authority in question.17 Tribal challenges to Congress’s ability to diminish inherent tribal authority would also continue to be treated as essentially political questions. This more consistent approach ultimately leaves the scope of inherent tribal authority in the hands of Congress." 672

12) Tribal Land: acquisition, buy-back, trust

a) AMERICAN INDIAN TERRITORIALITY an Online Research Guide [Edition of Oct. 17, ‘03][28] http://thorpe.ou.edu/treatises/AITExtra.pdf
This is an excellent guide and portrayal of Indian land issues. Maps and charts show various land tenure regimens in Indian country.

b) Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations https://www.doi.gov/buybackprogram

c) Carcieri v Salazar, 555 U.S. 379, 129 S.Ct. 1058 (2009)
http://tinyurl.com/Caarcieri-v-Salazar

d) Rice, G. William[29] 2009 The Indian Reorganization Act, The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and a Proposed Carcieri "Fix": Updating the Trust Land Acquisition Process. 45 Idaho L. Rev. 575 (2009).
http://tinyurl.com/IRA-DRIP-CarcieriFix

e) Smith, Anna V. Under Trump, tribal land ownership is not a priority. Aug 25, 2017 High Country News.
“All of these hearings in the last several months are basically a reinvigoration of what we used to call termination in the ’50’s and ’60’s,” says Matthew Fletcher, director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center at Michigan State University. The hearings indicate a chipping away at the trust relationship between the U.S. and tribes, which means tribal lands could see less sovereign protection, which some experts see as the first step towards increased energy development.".
http://www.hcn.org/issues/49.14/tribes-cobell-under-trump-tribal-land-initiatives-may-take-a-hit/

13) Reservation Diminishment

a) Recent Cases
http://tinyurl.com/Res-Diminish-2000-2017

b) Nebraska v Parker 136 S.Ct. 1072 (2016)
http://tinyurl.com/Nebraska-v-Parker-2016

c) City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY 544 US 197, 125 S. Ct. 1478, 161 L. Ed. 2d 386 - Supreme Court, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/Sherill-v-Oneida-2005

14) Federal Recognition "Acknowledgment"

a) Office of Fed Acknowledgment.
https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa

b) Federal Acknowledgment of American Indian Tribes (25 CFR Part 83)
http://tinyurl.com/FedRecog

c) Guidelines, Precedent Manual http://tinyurl.com/FedAckGuide

d) Recent Acknowledgement Actions
http://tinyurl.com/Recent-Actions

e) Miller, Mark, 2004 Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process. Lincoln: Univ of Nebraska Press.
http://tinyurl.com/Miller-Forgotten-Tribes

f) Riley, Lorinda (2015) When a Tribal Entity Becomes a Nation: The Role of Politics in the Shifting Federal Recognition Regulations, 39 Am. Indian L. Rev. 451
http://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol39/iss2/2
Note: this is a well-researched, in-depth analysis of the changing criteria for recognition of an Indian group as a "Tribe."

15) Gaming

a) Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Pub.L. 100–497, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/25/2701

b) National Indian Gaming Commission https://www.ngamingigc.gov/

c) Mitchell, Donald Craig. 2016 Wampum: How Indian Tribes, the Mafia, and an Inattentive Congress Invented Indian Gaming and Created a $28 Billion Gambling Empire. New York: Overlook Press.
http://tinyurl.com/Wampum-Mitchell-1916

d) Rossum, Ralph R. 2011 The Supreme Court and Tribal Gaming: California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.
http://tinyurl.com/Rossum-SpCt-TribalGaming

e) Turner, Allen C. 1987-88 Evolution, Assimilation, and State Control of Gaming in Indian Country: Is California v. Cabazon an Assimilationist Wolf in Preemption Clothing? 24 Idaho Law Rev.317
http://tinyurl.com/Turner-Cabazon

16) Tribal MEMBERSHIP: ENROLLMENT/Disenrollment

a) Membership appeals to Secretary of Interior (BIA)
25 CFR §62.4(a) (3) The rejection of an application for enrollment or the disenrollment of a tribal member by a tribal committee when the tribal governing document provides for an appeal of the action to the Secretary;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/62.4

b) Tribal Membership. Fletcher, Matthew. 2011 American Indian Tribal Law. Wolters-Klewer.
Chapter 4
http://tinyurl.com/Fletcher-Tribal-Law

c) Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 US 49 (1978)
http://tinyurl.com/Martinez-SantaClara-1978
Tribes make membership rules. P 79 fn 32 but see Cherokee v Nash (infra)
"[32] A tribe's right to define its own membership for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community. See Roff v. Burney, 168 U. S. 218 (1897); Cherokee Intermarriage Cases, 203 U. S. 76 (1906). Given the often vast gulf between tribal traditions and those with which federal courts are more intimately familiar, the judiciary should not rush to create causes of action that would intrude on these delicate matters."

d) Cherokee Nation v. Nash, Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2017 Civil Action No. 13-01313 (TFH). http://tinyurl.com/Cherokee-v-Nash
"The Court finds it confounding that the Cherokee Nation historically had no qualms about regarding freedmen as

(1) Cherokee "property" yet continues, even after 150 years, to balk when confronted with the legal imperative to treat them as Cherokee people. While the Cherokee Nation might persist in its design to perpetuate a moral injustice, this Court will not be complicit in the perpetuation of a legal injustice….
The Cherokee Nation's sovereign right to determine its membership is no less now, as a result of this decision, than it was after the Nation executed the 1866 Treaty. The Cherokee Nation concedes that its power to determine tribal membership can be limited by treaty. … The Cherokee Nation can continue to define itself as it sees fit but must do so equally and evenhandedly with respect to native Cherokees and the descendants of Cherokee freedmen. By interposition of Article 9 of the 1866 Treaty, neither has rights either superior or, importantly, inferior to the other. Their fates under the Cherokee Nation Constitution rise and fall equally and in tandem. In accordance with Article 9 of the 1866 Treaty, the Cherokee Freedmen have a present right to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation that is coextensive with the rights of native Cherokees."

(2) Cherokee Treaty 1866 Article IX
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=832

e) disenrollment

i) California Disenrollment Cases
http://tinyurl.com/Cal-Ind-Disenrollment

ii) Right to Appeal Tribal Disenrollment Decision
25 CFR §62.4(a)(3)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/62.4

iii) Galinda, Gabriel S[30]. and Ryan D. Dreveskracht 2015 CURING THE TRIBAL DISENROLLMENT EPIDEMIC: IN SEARCH OF A REMEDY. 57 Ariz Law Rev 383
http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/57-2/57arizlrev383.pdf

iv) Painter-Thorne, Suzianne D.[31] If You Build It, They Will Come: Preserving Tribal Sovereignty in the Face of Indian Casinos and the New Premium on Tribal Membership, 14 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 311, 345 (2010).
http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/4110

v) Wilkins, David E, and Shelly Hulso Wilkins. 2017. Dismembered: Native Disenrollments and the Battle for Human Rights. Seattle & London. Univ of Washington Press.
http://tinyurl.com/Wilkins-Dismembered

17) Child & Adult Protection

a) House Hearing on ICWA 1978 https://www.narf.org/nill/documents/icwa/federal/lh/hear020978/hear020978.pdf

b) Dept. of Justice: Tribal Justice and Safety
https://www.justice.gov/tribal

c) Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention 25 USC ch 34
http://tinyurl.com/Child-Protection-25-USC-ch-34

d) California Family Violence
http://www.courts.ca.gov/14851.htm

e) Child Welfare Cases
http://tinyurl.com/Cal-Ind-Child-Welfare

f) Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
http://www.courts.ca.gov/3067.htm

g) SB 638
http://tinyurl.com/CA-SB638-ICWA

h) Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (Pub.L. 95–608, 92 Stat. 3069, enacted November 8, 1978),
codified at 25 USC §§ 1901-1963
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/25/chapter-21

i) About ICWA
https://www.nicwa.org/about-icwa/

j) Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

k) Text of Bill S47 (107 pages) https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s47enr/pdf/BILLS-113s47enr.pdf

l) About the VAWA for Tribes
https://www.justice.gov/tribal/violence-against-women-act-vawa-reauthorization-2013-0

m) Tribal Jurisdiction of Non-Indian Offenders
http://tinyurl.com/Tribal-Juris-non-Indian

18) Environmental Challenges

a) Environmental Resources. Tribal Court Clearing House.
http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/environ.htm

b) Environmental Protection in Indian Country
https://www.epa.gov/tribal

c) ORTIZ, J. The Tribal Environment: Solid Waste in Indian Country. Environmental Management (2003) 31: 0355.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2857-6

d) Tsosie, Rebecca [32] THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE "PUBLIC TRUST" AND THE "INDIAN TRUST" DOCTRINES: FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND POLICY AND NATIVE NATIONS (2003) 39 Tulsa Law Review 271 http://tinyurl.com/Tsosie-Trust

e) 2017 California Indian Water Rights Cases
http://tinyurl.com/Cal-Ind-Water-2017

f) AGUA CALIENTE v. Coachella Valley Water Dist., 849 F. 3d 1262 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2017
http://tinyurl.com/Agua-Caliente-v-Coachella.
Does Winters Doctrine include access to groundwater?
"For over one hundred years, the Supreme Court has made clear that when the United States "withdraws its land from the public domain and reserves it for a federal purpose, the Government, by implication, reserves appurtenant water then unappropriated to the extent needed to accomplish the purpose of the reservation." Cappaert v. United States ,426 U.S. 128, 138, 96 S.Ct. 2062, 48 L.Ed.2d 523 (1976) (citing U.S. Const. art. I, § 8; U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3); see also Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 575-78, 28 S.Ct. 207, 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908); Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton, 647 F.2d 42, 46 (9th Cir. 1981." 1268

g) SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY v. HAUGRUD, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2017 http://tinyurl.com/fish-vs-farms
Yurok and Hoopa fishing vs Central Valley Irrigator

h) Tribal Oil and Trouble (video)
"Murder charges spark an investigation into a tribal chairman’s business dealings on the oil-rich Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota."
https://nyti.ms/2kAhNwW

i) Oak Flats Mine and Apache Stronghold opposition
http://www.apache-stronghold.com/save-oak-flat-bill.html

j) Land Transfer Act (permits deep copper mine on Apache sacred land)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/539p

k) H.R. 2915 Save Oak Flat Act to repeal 16 USC 539
http://tinyurl.com/Save-Oak-Flat-Act
Jun 15, 2017 (115th Congress, 2017–2019)

l) Dakota Access Pipeline

i) Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v US Army Corps of Engineers. Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia, 2017 -
http://tinyurl.com/DAPL-2017

ii) Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v US Army Corps of Engineers. United States District Court, District of Columbia. 2016
http://tinyurl.com/DAPL-2016
"Since the founding of this nation, the United States' relationship with the Indian tribes has been contentious and tragic. America's expansionist impulse in its formative years led to the removal and relocation of many tribes, often by treaty but also by force." Cobell v. Norton, 240 F. 3d 1081 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 2001 http://tinyurl.com/Cobell-v-Norton

19) Intellectual Property/cultural (mis)appropriation

a) Google Scholar Articles
http://tinyurl.com/intellectual-property-articles

b) Indian Arts and Crafts Act (IACA),
25 U.S.C. §§ 305a–305f

i) Indian Arts and Crafts Act Legislative History

ii) Indian Arts and Crafts Act Legislative Committee Report

iii) 25 CFR Protection of Indian Arts and Crafts Products

iv) 18 USC Indian Arts and Crafts Board

v) 25 USC Indian Arts and Crafts Board

vi) Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2010 Indian Arts and Crafts Enforcement Act of 2000

vii) Final Regulations for the Act of 2000

viii) Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990

ix) Final Regulations for the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990\

c) Safeguard Tribal Objects of Patrimony Act of 2017
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s1400/text

d) Pommersheim, Frank. The Crazy Horse Malt Liquor Case: From Tradition to Modernity and Halfway Back (2012) 57 South Dakota Law Review 42. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2131375

e) Riley, Angela R. Straight Stealing: Towards an Indigenous System of Cultural Property Protection 80 Wash. L. Rev. 69 (2005)
https://ssrn.com/abstract=703283

* * *

[1] Imre Sutton, Prof. Emeritus, Geography, Cal State Fullerton.

[2] ROBERT D. COOTER is Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley.
WOLFGANG FIKENTSCHER is Professor of Law, University of Munich

[3] Judge Joseph J. Wiseman is Chief Judge of the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians and a member of the Tribal Court-State Court Forum in California

[4] Glenn T. Morris, Shawnee, is a member of the Leadership Council of the American Indian Movement of Colorado, an attorney, and a professor of political science at the University of Colorado at Denver

[5] 436 US 49 (1978)

[6] Distinguished Jurist in Residence, Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program, James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; Retired Associate Justice, Navajo Nation Supreme Court, Window Rock, Navajo Nation (Arizona). Ph.D., 2007, University of Arizona; J.D., 1983, University of New Mexico Law School; B.S., 1979, Arizona State University. Justice Austin is Diné from the Navajo Nation in northeastern Arizona

[7] Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

[8] Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, Yale Law School.

[9] Asst. Prof. Law. University of New Mexico

[10] Assistant Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law; J.D., University of Michigan Law School. Enrolled Member, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.

[11] Gabriel S. Galanda is an owner of Galanda Broadman, P.L.L.C., an American Indian-owned law firm dedicated to advancing and defending Indian rights. Ryan Dreveskracht is an associate at Galanda Broadman, P.L.L.C. Mr. Galanda is a descendant of the Nomlaki and Concow Tribes, who is a citizen of and otherwise belongs to the Round Valley Indian Tribes.

[12] Raphael J. Moses Professor of Law, University of Colorado School of Law.

[13] General Counsel to the Onondaga Nation, the central fire keeper of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Adjunct Assistant Professor of Law, Syracuse University Law School, 1982; Adjunct Professor, SUNY Oswego, 1982-1983

[14] Associate Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law;

[15] Miller >cv> https://apps.law.asu.edu/files/faculty/cvs/millerrobert.pdf

[16] Assistant Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. B.A., University of Maryland, College Park, 1999; J.D., University of California, Davis, 2002

[17] Professor G. William Rice, University of Tulsa College of Law. Co-Director, Native American Law Center

[18] Associate Professor, Williams S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

[19] Professor of Law, Harvard University

[20] Id.

[21] Associate Professor of Political Science & Law, Director of Legal Studies, University of Wisconsin, Parkside.

[22] Regents Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law

[23] Professor of Law, Arizona State University. Member Lumbee Indian Tribe. JD Harvard 1980

[24] Assistant Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. B.A., University of Maryland, College Park, 1999; J.D., University of California, Davis, 2002

[25] Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

[26] Professor of Law, Harvard University

[27] Associate Professor, Brigham Young University Law

[28] Imre Sutton, Prof. Emeritus, Geography, Cal State Fullerton.

[29] Professor G. William Rice, University of Tulsa College of Law. Co-Director, Native American Law Center

[30] Gabriel S. Galanda is an owner of Galanda Broadman, P.L.L.C., an American Indian-owned law firm dedicated to advancing and defending Indian rights. Ryan Dreveskracht is an associate at Galanda Broadman, P.L.L.C. Mr. Galanda is a descendant of the Nomlaki and Concow Tribes, who is a citizen of and otherwise belongs to the Round Valley Indian Tribes.

[31] Assistant Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. B.A., University of Maryland, College Park, 1999; J.D., University of California, Davis, 2002

[32] Lincoln Professor of Native American Law and Ethics and Executive Director. Indian Legal Program, Arizona State University.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION