6.7 Federal Indian law

Federal Indian law shapes the complex relationship between Native American tribes and the U.S. government. It defines tribal legal status, regulates interactions between governments, and impacts sovereignty debates. Understanding its origins provides crucial context for contemporary Native American issues.

The Marshall trilogy cases established key concepts like the trust relationship and tribal sovereignty. These foundational principles continue to influence federal-tribal relations, shaping policies on land rights, jurisdiction, and governance structures.

Origins of federal Indian law

• Federal Indian law emerged from the complex historical relationship between Native American tribes and the United States government
• This body of law defines the legal status of tribes and regulates interactions between tribal, federal, and state governments
• Understanding the origins provides crucial context for contemporary Native American legal issues and sovereignty debates

Marshall trilogy cases

Top images from around the web for Marshall trilogy cases

• 

  Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Johnson v. M'Intosh - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Cherokee removal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Johnson v. M'Intosh - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Marshall trilogy cases

• 

  Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Johnson v. M'Intosh - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Cherokee removal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Johnson v. M'Intosh - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) established the doctrine of discovery limiting tribal land rights
• Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) defined tribes as "domestic dependent nations"
• Worcester v. Georgia (1832) affirmed tribal sovereignty and limited state jurisdiction on tribal lands
• These cases laid the foundation for federal authority over Indian affairs
• Introduced key concepts like the trust relationship and tribal sovereignty

Trust doctrine development

• Emerged from Marshall's characterization of tribes as "wards" under federal protection
• Federal government assumed fiduciary duties to manage tribal resources and lands
• Expanded through subsequent court decisions and legislation
• Created ongoing obligations for the federal government to act in tribes' best interests
• Includes managing tribal assets, providing services, and protecting tribal rights

Plenary power concept

• Asserts broad congressional authority over Indian affairs based on the Constitution
• Allows Congress to legislate on all aspects of tribal life and governance
• Justified federal actions like forced relocation and allotment of tribal lands
• Has been used to both restrict and protect tribal rights over time
• Remains controversial due to its potential to undermine tribal sovereignty

Tribal sovereignty principles

• Tribal sovereignty refers to the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves
• This concept has evolved through court decisions, legislation, and shifting federal policies
• Understanding tribal sovereignty is crucial for grasping the complex relationships between tribes, states, and the federal government

Domestic dependent nations status

• Defined by Chief Justice John Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
• Recognizes tribes as distinct political entities with inherent powers of self-government
• Establishes a trust relationship between tribes and the federal government
• Limits tribal external relations, particularly with foreign nations
• Creates a unique legal status distinct from both foreign nations and U.S. states

Inherent tribal powers

• Stem from tribes' original sovereignty predating the U.S. Constitution
• Include powers of self-government, law enforcement, and taxation
• Allow tribes to determine membership criteria and form governmental structures
• Encompass management of tribal lands and resources
• Extend to regulation of domestic relations among tribal members

Limitations on tribal authority

• Restrictions on criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians (Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978)
• Limitations on civil jurisdiction over non-members on non-Indian fee lands within reservations
• Prohibition on direct diplomatic relations with foreign nations
• Federal government retains power to modify or eliminate tribal powers
• State jurisdiction in certain areas under Public Law 280 or specific agreements

Federal-tribal relationship

• The federal-tribal relationship is rooted in historical interactions and legal precedents
• This relationship defines the rights, responsibilities, and obligations between tribes and the U.S. government
• Understanding this dynamic is essential for analyzing contemporary Native American policy issues

Treaty-making process

• Primary means of formal relations between tribes and U.S. government until 1871
• Recognized tribes as sovereign entities capable of negotiating agreements
• Often involved land cessions in exchange for reserved rights and federal protections
• Many treaties were negotiated under duress or with inadequate tribal representation
• Treaty rights continue to be significant in modern legal disputes (hunting, fishing, water rights)

Trust responsibility

• Stems from the federal government's fiduciary obligations to tribes
• Includes protection of tribal lands, assets, and resources
• Requires provision of services like healthcare and education
• Imposes duties on federal agencies to consult with tribes on actions affecting them
• Has been interpreted differently by courts and administrations over time

Federal recognition procedures

• Process by which the U.S. government formally acknowledges a tribe's sovereign status
• Criteria include continuous existence, community, political authority, and descent from historical tribe
• Administrative process through Bureau of Indian Affairs or congressional action
• Recognition grants access to federal services and protection of sovereign rights
• Controversial due to lengthy process and potential impacts on gaming rights

Jurisdiction in Indian country

• Jurisdiction in Indian country involves complex overlaps between tribal, federal, and state authority
• Understanding these jurisdictional issues is crucial for law enforcement, civil disputes, and governance
• The allocation of jurisdiction has significant implications for tribal sovereignty and self-determination

Criminal jurisdiction complexities

• Determined by factors including location, type of crime, and Indian status of perpetrator and victim
• Major Crimes Act (1885) gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain serious crimes by Indians
• General Crimes Act applies federal criminal law to interracial crimes in Indian country
• Tribal courts have jurisdiction over Indians but face limitations on sentencing (Indian Civil Rights Act)
• Recent legislation (Tribal Law and Order Act, VAWA reauthorization) has expanded tribal jurisdiction

Civil jurisdiction issues

• Tribes generally have civil jurisdiction over members and tribal lands
• Montana v. United States (1981) limited tribal civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on fee lands
• Exceptions allow jurisdiction if non-Indian enters consensual relationships or threatens tribal interests
• State courts may have jurisdiction in cases involving non-Indians or occurring off reservation
• Tribal exhaustion doctrine requires litigants to exhaust tribal court remedies before going to federal court

Public Law 280 states

• Passed in 1953, transferred federal criminal jurisdiction to six mandatory states
• Allowed other states to assume similar jurisdiction (optional states)
• Intended to address law enforcement issues on reservations
• Did not eliminate tribal jurisdiction but created concurrent state jurisdiction
• Has been criticized for undermining tribal sovereignty and creating jurisdictional confusion

Indian land rights

• Indian land rights are central to tribal sovereignty and economic development
• The history of Indian land policy reflects changing federal approaches to tribal relations
• Understanding land rights is crucial for analyzing contemporary issues like resource management and jurisdiction

Reservation system establishment

• Began in earnest with the Indian Removal Act of 1830
• Involved forced relocation of tribes to designated territories
• Intended to separate Indians from expanding white settlements
• Created permanent homelands for tribes with defined boundaries
• Reservations became the basis for modern tribal territorial sovereignty

Allotment era effects

• Initiated by the General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) of 1887
• Divided communal tribal lands into individual parcels
• Aimed to assimilate Indians into American society as farmers
• Resulted in massive loss of Indian lands (about 90 million acres)
• Created checkerboard pattern of ownership on many reservations

Land into trust process

• Allows transfer of land title to federal government to be held in trust for tribes or individual Indians
• Established by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934
• Protects land from alienation and generally exempts it from state and local taxation
• Process involves application to Bureau of Indian Affairs and environmental review
• Controversial when used for off-reservation acquisitions, particularly for gaming purposes

Tribal governance structures

• Tribal governance structures reflect both traditional practices and adaptations to federal policies
• Understanding these structures is essential for analyzing tribal decision-making and sovereignty
• Governance forms impact tribal-federal relations and internal tribal politics

Traditional vs modern governments

• Traditional forms often based on clan systems, hereditary leadership, or consensus decision-making
• Modern structures may include elected tribal councils, separation of powers, and written constitutions
• Some tribes maintain dual systems with both traditional and modern elements
• Traditional forms may focus more on cultural preservation and community harmony
• Modern structures often designed to interface with federal agencies and manage complex programs

Indian Reorganization Act impact

• Passed in 1934 as part of the Indian New Deal
• Encouraged tribes to adopt written constitutions and corporate charters
• Provided a model constitution that many tribes adopted or modified
• Aimed to strengthen tribal governments and end allotment policy
• Critics argue it imposed Western governance models on traditional tribal structures

Tribal constitutions and codes

• Define governmental structure, citizenship criteria, and basic rights
• Often include provisions for elections, removal of officials, and referendum processes
• Tribal codes cover areas like criminal law, family law, and natural resource management
• May incorporate traditional laws and customs alongside Western legal concepts
• Subject to approval by the Secretary of Interior under some circumstances

Federal Indian policy eras

• Federal Indian policy has undergone significant shifts throughout U.S. history
• These policy eras reflect changing attitudes towards Native Americans and tribal sovereignty
• Understanding these eras provides context for current legal and political issues facing tribes

Removal and reservations

• Removal era (1830s-1850s) focused on relocating eastern tribes to lands west of the Mississippi
• Resulted in forced marches (Trail of Tears) and significant loss of life
• Reservation era (1850s-1887) established permanent tribal homelands
• Aimed to confine tribes and open up lands for white settlement
• Treaties during this period often involved land cessions in exchange for reserved rights

Allotment and assimilation

• Began with General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) of 1887
• Divided tribal lands into individual parcels to promote farming and "civilize" Indians
• Surplus lands sold to non-Indians, resulting in massive land loss
• Accompanied by efforts to suppress Native languages and cultures
• Boarding school system removed children from tribal communities for assimilation

Indian New Deal

• Initiated by John Collier as Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1930s
• Indian Reorganization Act (1934) ended allotment and promoted tribal self-government
• Encouraged economic development and cultural preservation
• Established land-into-trust process to rebuild tribal land bases
• Criticized for imposing Western governance models on tribes

Termination vs self-determination

• Termination era (1940s-1960s) sought to end federal recognition of tribes
• Resulted in loss of federal services and tribal status for several tribes
• Self-determination era (1970s-present) promotes tribal control over programs and services
• Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975) allows tribes to contract federal programs
• Recent policies focus on government-to-government relationships and tribal consultation

Contemporary legal issues

• Modern federal Indian law addresses a wide range of complex issues
• These issues often involve balancing tribal sovereignty with state and federal interests
• Understanding contemporary legal challenges is crucial for analyzing the evolving nature of tribal rights

Gaming and economic development

• Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (1988) established framework for tribal casinos
• Requires tribal-state compacts for Class III gaming (slot machines, table games)
• Has provided significant revenue for some tribes, funding social programs and infrastructure
• Controversial due to impacts on surrounding communities and potential for corruption
• Non-gaming economic development efforts include energy projects, tourism, and manufacturing

Environmental regulation

• Tribes have authority to set environmental standards on reservation lands
• EPA treats tribes as states for purposes of major environmental laws (Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act)
• Jurisdictional issues arise with off-reservation impacts and non-Indian activities on reservations
• Tribal regulation of natural resources (water rights, hunting, fishing) often based on treaty rights
• Climate change poses unique challenges for tribes, threatening cultural practices and livelihoods

Child welfare and ICWA

• Indian Child Welfare Act (1978) passed to address high rates of Indian child removal
• Gives tribal courts jurisdiction over child custody proceedings involving Indian children
• Establishes placement preferences favoring Indian families and tribes
• Controversial due to perceived conflicts with state laws and non-Indian adoptive parents' rights
• Currently facing constitutional challenges in federal courts

Tribal sovereign immunity

• Doctrine that prevents tribes from being sued without their consent or congressional authorization
• Extends to tribal enterprises and officials acting in official capacity
• Does not apply to individual tribal members
• Has been limited in some contexts by Congress and court decisions
• Controversial when applied to off-reservation commercial activities

Indian law in state systems

• State-tribal relations involve complex legal and jurisdictional issues
• Understanding these relationships is crucial for analyzing conflicts and cooperation between tribes and states
• State recognition and implementation of tribal rights varies significantly across the United States

State-tribal relations

• Range from adversarial to cooperative depending on history and current leadership
• Some states have formal consultation policies or tribal liaisons in government agencies
• Intergovernmental agreements address issues like law enforcement, taxation, and natural resources
• State recognition of tribes distinct from federal recognition, with varying legal implications
• Tensions often arise over jurisdiction, taxation, and regulation of non-Indians on reservations

Public Law 280 implementation

• Varies significantly among the six mandatory and additional optional PL 280 states
• Some states have retroceded jurisdiction back to the federal government and tribes
• Creates concurrent state and tribal jurisdiction, leading to potential conflicts
• Often criticized for inadequate funding and resources for state law enforcement on reservations
• Some tribes have negotiated specific agreements with states to clarify jurisdictional issues

Tribal court recognition

• Full Faith and Credit Clause of Constitution does not automatically apply to tribal court judgments
• Many states have adopted procedures for recognizing and enforcing tribal court orders
• Recognition often based on principles of comity rather than constitutional requirement
• Issues arise with differences in due process standards between tribal and state courts
• Some states require reciprocity from tribal courts to enforce state court judgments

Future of federal Indian law

• The field of federal Indian law continues to evolve in response to changing social, political, and economic conditions
• Understanding current trends and initiatives is crucial for anticipating future developments in tribal rights and sovereignty
• These emerging issues reflect ongoing efforts to address historical injustices and strengthen tribal self-governance

Self-governance initiatives

• Expansion of tribal control over federal programs and services
• Increased emphasis on direct funding to tribes rather than through federal agencies
• Development of tribal capacity in areas like healthcare, education, and law enforcement
• Efforts to reform trust asset management and increase tribal control over resources
• Exploration of new models for tribal-federal partnerships and co-management of lands

Tribal jurisdiction expansion efforts

• Push for restoration of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians on reservations
• Advocacy for civil jurisdiction over non-members in areas affecting tribal interests
• Efforts to clarify and strengthen tribal authority in environmental regulation
• Initiatives to expand tribal court jurisdiction and increase state/federal recognition of tribal court orders
• Exploration of international legal frameworks to support indigenous rights

Indigenous rights in international law

• Growing recognition of indigenous rights in international forums (UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples)
• Efforts to apply international human rights standards to federal Indian law
• Increased tribal participation in international bodies and treaties
• Exploration of climate change impacts on indigenous communities through international mechanisms
• Potential for international law to influence domestic policy and court decisions on indigenous rights