Why Treaties Matter: Sovereignty and Existence

Similar documents
Tribal Nations United States Relations: Policy Eras and Future Developments

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Copyright 2010 by Washington Law Review Association

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Did You Know? Facts About Treaties Between the United States and Native Nations

Presented by Marsha Harlan, Esq, Kara Whitworth, Director of Cherokee Nation Child Support Services TRIBAL IV-D 101- FOR STATES

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS A look at Indian land claims in Ohio for gaming purposes. By Keith H. Raker

Indigenous Governance Law Law B584 A, B, C - 4 Credits Fall T and TH 3:30-5:20 PM William H. Gates Hall Room 118

The Constitution of the United States Applies to Indian Tribes

CASE 0:13-cr JRT-LIB Document 46 Filed 09/03/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Natural Resources Journal

Justices for the Court: Garbriel Duvall, William Johnson, Chief Justice John Marshall, John McLean, Joseph Story, Smith Thompson

History: Present

Regulatory Jurisdiction on Indian Reservations in Montana

Application of the ADEA to Indian Tribes: EEOC v. Fond du Lac Heavy Equipment & Construction Co., 986 F.2d 246 (1993)

CHAMORRO TRIBE I Chamorro Na Taotaogui IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR NATIVE CHAMORROS

History Rewritten. Presenters: Tish Keahna Kruzan and Lisa Skenandore #WICSEC2018 1

Justice Rehnquist s Theory of Indian Law: The Evolution from Mazurie to Atkinson Where Did He Leave the Court? Brenna Willott 1

United States Court of Appeals

Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.: Doing the Right Thing for All the Wrong Reasons

Sec. 4 A New Era of Trust.

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STATE OF OREGON, THOMAS CAPTAIN, ON WRIT OF CRITIORARI TO THE OREGON COURT OF APPEALS

Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program

NO IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF OREGON, THOMAS CAPTAIN,

American Indian & Alaska Native. Tribal Government Policy

Standing Rock, the Sioux Treaties, and the Limits of the Supremacy Clause

In the. Supreme Court of the. United States

Week 1 OUTLINE. INTRODUCTION: Indian Country (Week 1 reading, Introduction from SNN/aka: State of Native Nations)

Natural Resources Journal

Natural Resources Journal

Supreme Court of the United States

11/16/10. [1] U. S. Constitution, Article II, 2, Cl. 2.

INDIAN LAW RESOURCE CENTER

At the Whim of the Sovereign: Aboriginal Title Reconsidered

The Governmental Context for Development in Indian Country: Modern Tribal Institutions and the Bureau of Indian Affairs

2 This view of tribal autonomy gave rise to the doctrine of inherent

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. FOURTEEN YEARS, BIRTH FATHER, AND THE CHEROKEE NATION, Respondents.

Empowerment through Incorporation: The Trouble with Agreement Making and Tribal Sovereignty

The Trust Doctrine: A Source of Protection for Native American Sacred Sites

Acentral theme in federal Indian law focuses on the inherent

R. Stephen McNeill * Table of Contents

John Marshall and Indian Nations in the Beginning and Now, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev (2000)

Case 1:12-cv GZS Document Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: Civ. Action No. 1:12-cv GZS

WHY ABORIGINAL TITLE IS A FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE

Volume LXXII Number IX October Official Publication of the Minnesota State Bar Association. The Nations Within.

United States Court of Appeals

3D Michigan Treaties in Action Lesson Plan. Materials needed

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Case3:11-cv JW Document14 Filed08/29/11 Page1 of 8

History of Indian hunting and fishing rights as they pertain to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the Hellgate Treaty of 1855

Business Management Curriculum

Montana at the Crossroads

Native American Treaty Project

Nos &

Nos , , , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case 3:18-cv RCJ-WGC Document 28 Filed 11/07/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Tribal Civil Judicial Jurisdiction over Nonmembers: A Practical Guide for Judges

The De Facto Termination of Alaska Native Sovereignty: An Anomaly in an Era of Self- Determination

Federal Indian Law First Circuit Court of Appeals Clarifies Penobscot Nation s Reservation Boundary Penobscot Nation v. Mills

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiff, Defendant. Plaintiff, Defendants.

Expanding Tribal Citizenship Using International Principles of Self Determination. Jancita C. Warrington B.A., Haskell Indian Nations University, 2002

Solid Waste Regulation in Indian Country

By John Petoskey, General Counsel Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians. Great Lakes Tribal Economic Development Symposium

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Case 6:83-cv MV-JHR Document 4383 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

1836 Treaty Time Line re: Reserved Usufruct Rights

Rice v. Cayetano: The Supreme Court Declines to Extend Federal Indian Law Principles to Native Hawaiians Sovereign Rights 1. Jeanette Wolfley 2

Case 4:14-cv BLW Document 72 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 38

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MARCH 2019 ROBERT R. REYNOLDS, Petitioner

Lesson 1: Introduction to Indigenous Populations of the Great Lakes Region and Overview of Federal Indian Policy

TIGER V. WESTERN INV. CO. 221 U.S. 286 (1911)

Indian Nations, Tribal Sovereignty, and Tribal Government

B. Decisions Applying the Indian Tucker Act Support Liability in This Case CONCLUSION...15

Case 5:15-cv L Document 1 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

No In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF OREGON, THOMAS CAPTAIN, On Writ of Certiorari to the Oregon Court of Appeals

Environmental Protection in Indian Country: The Fundamentals

No DAVID MICHAEL DAVIS, Petitioner, THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, Respondent. BRIEF FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA IN OPPOSITION

The Federal Trust Doctrine. What does it mean for DoD?

Manifest Destiny: A Comparison of the Constitutional Status of Indian Tribes and U.S. Overseas Territories

The Violence Against Women Act, Federal Criminal Jurisdiction, and Indian Tribal Courts

FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA ORDINANCE #03/14 PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Supreme Court of the United States

Tribal Authority to Zone Nonmember Fee Land Using the First Montana Exception: A Game of Checkers Tribes Can Win

TOWARD GENUINE TRIBAL CONSULTATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Supreme Court of the United States

Order in the Courts: Resolution of Tribal/State Criminal Jurisdictional Disputes

No. 18- IN THE. ~upreme ~ourt of t~e i~niteb Dtate~ HAROLD MCNEAL AND MICHELLE MCNEAL, Petitioners,

In the Supreme Court of the United States

No United States Supreme Court. State of Oregon. Appellant/Petitioner, Thomas Captain. Appellee/Respondent. and Cross-Petitioner.

Toward an Administrative

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THOMAS CAPTAIN, Defendant-Appellee.

CASE 0:16-cv JRT-LIB Document 41 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Tribal Human Resources Professionals FIRST LINE REPRESENTATIVES AND ADVOCATES OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY

October 18th, 2001, Cœur d Alene, Idaho Gene Straughan, Lewis-Clark State College

No In the Supreme Court of the United States. State of Oregon, Petitioner. Thomas Captain, Respondent and cross-petitioner

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

US Code (Unofficial compilation from the Legal Information Institute) TITLE 25 - INDIANS CHAPTER 16 DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS

Supreme Court of the United States

Alaskan Native Indian Villages: The Question of Sovereign Rights

Case 1:05-cv TLL-CEB Document 150 Filed 01/30/2009 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

Transcription:

Why Treaties Matter: Sovereignty and Existence Terry L. Janis Indian Land Tenure Foundation Returning Indian Lands to Indian People

Our Mission Land within the original boundaries of every reservation and other areas of high significance where tribes retain aboriginal interest are in Indian ownership and management

Our Strategies Education Indian land curriculum, strategic land planning, estate planning Economic Opportunity Informational sessions for government leaders, landowner financial training Cultural Awareness Sacred site protection, tribal land histories Legislative & Legal Reform Native Land Law Initiative

Definitions of Sovereignty The supreme power, esp. over a body politic [and] freedom from external control.... Webster s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield MA: Merriam Webster, Inc, 1985) 1129. Sovereignty is supreme authority, which on the international plane means not legal authority over all other states but rather legal authority which is not in law dependent on any other earthly authority. Oppenheim s International Law Vol 1, Universal Law Publishing, 9th Edition, 1996, Pg 122

Native Nations are Sovereign Peoples The Indian Nations had always been considered as distinct, independent, political communities,....... and the settled doctrine of the law of nations is, that a weaker power does not surrender its independence its right to self government by associating with a stronger, and taking its protection. A weak state, in order to provide for its safety, may place itself under the protection of one more powerful, without stripping itself of the right of government, and ceasing to be a state. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 559 60 (1832).

With the Inherent Right of Self government Perhaps the most basic principle of all Indian law is the principle that those powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe are not, in general, delegated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but rather inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished.... From the earliest years of the Republic the Indian tribes have been recognized as distinct, independent, political communities, and, as such, qualified to exercise powers of self government, not by virtue of any delegation of powers from the Federal Government, but rather by reason of their original tribal sovereignty. Handbook on Federal Indian Law, 1941 Cohen, at 122 (citation and footnote omitted) (emphasis in original).

Treaty Making with Indian Nations All treaties made, or which shall be made shall be the supreme Law of the Land, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl.2. Indian nations often granted land and other resources to the United States but retained all rights not specifically granted and other attributes of inherent sovereignty. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 554 (1832).

Minnesota Treaty History From 1805 to 1867 there were 41 treaties with the U.S. government involving indigenous people/land within Minnesota Territory. MHC Why Treaties Matter website. Treaties of 1795, 1825, 1826, 1837, 1847 and 1854 with Anishinabe reserved hunting, fishing and gathering rights to ceded lands. Reserved Rights Doctrine

Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians In 1837, the United States entered into a Treaty with several Bands of Chippewa Indians. Under terms of this Treaty the United States guaranteed to the Indians certain hunting, fishing and gathering rights on the ceded land.after an examination of the historical record, we conclude that the Chippewa retain the usufructuary rights guaranteed to them under the 1837 Treaty. Minnesota et al. v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172, 175 (1999).

Aboriginal and Fee Title Doctrine of Discovery Marshall Trilogy: Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), Worcester v. Georgia (1832) Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States, 1955

Treaties and Plenary Power Article VI, Clause 2, All treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. Cannons of Construction Reserved Rights Doctrine US v. Kagama (1886); Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903)

Trust Title and Trust Relationship General Allotment Act of 1887 Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 Trust Relationship under Cherokee Nation v. Georgia; US v. Mitchell (1980 and 1983); US v. Jicarilla Apache Nation (2011)

Authority to Govern States are generally prohibited from taxing or regulating Indian lands without congressional approval. If alienable then taxable and subject to state regulation. House Concurrent Resolution 108 (1953). Public Law 83 280 (1953).

Why Treaties Matter: Sovereignty and Existence Terry L. Janis Office 651 766 8999; Cell 651 788 3454 tjanis@iltf.org