Author | Title | Citation | Summary | Year | Key Terms |
|
Treaty Benefits Clarified for Indian Students, Apprentices |
4 Journal of International Taxation 163 (April, 1993) |
In Rev. Proc. 93-20, IRB 1993-13, x, the IRS explained the exemptions and deductions allowable by reason of the U.S.-India tax treaty to Indian students or business apprentices temporarily in the U.S. for education or training. The Procedure is effective retroactively for tax years beginning in 1992. Indian students and apprentices are normally... |
1993 |
Yes |
Michael E. Connelly |
Tribal Jurisdiction under Section 1911(b) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978: Are the States Respecting Indian Sovereignty? |
23 New Mexico Law Review 479 (Spring, 1993) |
As with most areas of law, an enduring problem in federal Indian law relates to jurisdiction. The question of which court system has authority to hear cases involving Indians has remained constant for decades, in spite of lawmakers' best efforts to resolve the issue. While in some areas of the law, tribal jurisdiction is being challenged, in at... |
1993 |
Yes |
Patrick Irvine |
Tribal Sovereign Immunity and Economic Development |
29-JUL Arizona Attorney 17 (July, 1993) |
Indian reservations are increasingly becoming sites for commercial developments. In Arizona these include gaming operations, industrial parks, hotels, retail shopping centers, race tracks, amphitheaters, waste disposal sites, and residential developments. These developments often involve commercial agreements, leases, or contracts between tribes... |
1993 |
Yes |
Julie A. Pace |
Enforcement of Tribal Law in Federal Court: Affirmation of Indian Sovereignty or a Step Backward Towards Assimilation? |
24 Arizona State Law Journal 435 (Spring, 1992) |
I. INTRODUCTION. 436 II. LEGAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. 438 A. Tribal Civil Jurisdiction. 438 1.Indian Country. 438 2.Indians, Nonmember Indians, and Non-Indians. 441 3. Enforcement of Tribal Judgments. 443 4. Service of Tribal Process. 444 5. Tribal Court, C.F.R. Court, or No Court System. 444 B. State Civil Jurisdiction. 447 1. State... |
1992 |
Yes |
Martha Hirschfield |
Native Claims Settlement Act: Tribal Sovereignty and the Corporate Form |
101 Yale Law Journal 1331 (April, 1992) |
In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), granting the Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts of Alaska title to over forty million acres of land and awarding them almost one billion dollars for the extinguishment of their claims to Alaska lands. At the time, Natives supported ANCSA as a formal recognition of their... |
1992 |
Yes |
Sally Falk Moore |
Treating Law as Knowledge: Telling Colonial Officers What to Say to Africans about Running "Their Native Courts |
26 Law and Society Review 11 (1992) |
This article is presented at two levels throughout. On the surface it is a straightforward historical analysis of a directive to British officers in charge of African courts in the late colonial period, with some African data adduced to sketch the local context into which the British were trying to insert new procedures and practices. On a deeper... |
1992 |
Yes |
Steve E. Dietrich |
Tribal Businesses and the Uncertain Reach of Tribal Sovereign Immunity: a Statutory Solution |
67 Washington Law Review 113 (January, 1992) |
Abstract: The effect of tribal sovereign immunity on business transactions is difficult to predict, despite the doctrine's often dramatic importance. Unlike the sovereign immunities of state, federal, and foreign governments, the scope of tribal immunity is not defined by statute. Some courts have applied the doctrine in a manner that is contrary... |
1992 |
Yes |
Melanie P. Baise |
A New Limitation on Indian Tribal Sovereignty: No Criminal Jurisdiction over Nonmember Indians |
15 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 623 (Spring, 1991) |
Disputes concerning the jurisdiction of Indian tribes over persons and activities on tribal lands have been a part of American jurisprudence since early in the nation's history. In the most recent case, Duro v. Reina, the United States Supreme Court considered whether Indian tribes possess the power of criminal jurisdiction over Indians who are not... |
1991 |
Yes |
Margaret Wilson |
Duro v. Reina: the Last Nail in the Coffin for Indian Tribal Sovereignty |
1991 Utah Law Review 675 (1991) |
The United States Supreme Court dealt a serious blow to tribal sovereignty and dignity in Duro v. Reina. In Duro, the Court held that a tribal court may not exercise criminal jurisdiction over Indians who are not members of that tribe. The Duro decision added insult to the injury of Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, decided twelve years earlier,... |
1991 |
Yes |
Elizabeth Pa Martin |
Hawaiian Natives Claims of Sovereignty and Self-determination |
8 Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law 273 (1991) |
Ano Ai Me Kealoha. E na hulu manu like ole. I am Elizabeth Pa Martin, an attorney of Native Hawaiian ancestry and Executive Director of the Native Hawaiian Advisory Council (NHAC). NHAC is a nonprofit corporation pursuing the protection of Hawaiian native rights. NHAC works to hold governments and lawmakers accountable for the proper... |
1991 |
Yes |
John C. Mohawk |
Indian Economic Development: an Evolving Concept of Sovereignty |
39 Buffalo Law Review 495 (Spring, 1991) |
American Indian economic development is a relatively recent area of study. Beginning around 1968, American Indians across the country began protesting what they termed unfair domination by the United States government through its administrative bureaucraciesthe Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Land Management, and a host of smaller,... |
1991 |
Yes |
Stacy L. Cook |
Indian Sovereignty: State Tax Collection on Indian Sales to NonTribal Members - States Have a Right Without a Remedy [Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 111 S. Ct. 905 (1991)] |
31 Washburn Law Journal 130 (Fall, 1991) |
In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, the United States Supreme Court clarifies issues concerning the doctrine of Indian tribal sovereignty. The Supreme Court holds that, under the doctrine of tribal sovereignty, a state that has not asserted jurisdiction over Indian lands pursuant to Public Law 280 can... |
1991 |
Yes |
Joseph D. Gebhardt |
Native Hawaiian Land Rights in the Context of the Native Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement |
8 Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law 265 (1991) |
During the 1980s, I worked on Native Hawaiian legal rights, particularly land rights cases involving the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and the Hawaiian Admission Act. But rather than tell you war stories, since this is an academic conference, I will discuss Native Hawaiian land rights in the context of the Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement. My... |
1991 |
Yes |
Keith Cable |
Rosebud v. South Dakota: How Does Tribal Sovereignty Affect the Determination of State Jurisdiction on Reservation Highways? |
36 South Dakota Law Review 400 (1991) |
In Rosebud v. South Dakota, the Eighth Circuit helped to reaffirm tribal sovereignty by not allowing South Dakota to assume civil and criminal jurisdiction over the highways running through Indian reservations in the state. This reaffirmation is undermined, however, by the absence of a strict application of Public Law 280. Because of this judicial... |
1991 |
Yes |
Robert J. Miller |
Speaking with Forked Tongues: Indian Treaties, Salmon, and the Endangered Species Act |
70 Oregon Law Review 543 (Fall, 1991) |
Great Nations, like great men, should keep their word. As long as water flows, or grass grows upon the earth, or the sun rises to show your pathway, or you kindle your camp fires, so long shall you be protected by this Government. In the mid-1800s, as white settlers began migrating to the Oregon and Washington territories, Northwest Indian... |
1991 |
Yes |
Kevin J. Worthen |
Sword or Shield: the past and Future Impact of Western Legal Thought on American Indian Sovereignty |
104 Harvard Law Review 1372 (April, 1991) |
[American Indian tribes'] rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, was denied by the original fundamental principle that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it. Chief Justice Marshall's explanation of the... |
1991 |
Yes |
Robert Laurence |
The Abrogation of Indian Treaties by Federal Statutes Protective of the Environment |
31 Natural Resources Journal 859 (Fall, 1991) |
Natural resource exploitation and conservation: these are words of the 1990s. The idea of an oil slick the size of a small state floating near our most pristine coastline was shocking to many Americans, but no more shocking than the idea that we might, for the sake of the environment, have to reduce our consumption of oil. Hard choices lie ahead;... |
1991 |
Yes |
Elizabeth A. Harvey |
The Aftermath of Duro v. Reina: a Congressional Attempt to Reaffirm Tribal Sovereignty Through Criminal Jurisdiction over Nonmember Indians |
8 Thomas M. Cooley Law Review 573 (Michaelmas Term 1991) |
Throughout the history of the United States, congressional policy on Indian affairs has undergone a variety of changes. Change has often been extreme: from a policy of assimilation, to a policy of self-determination. These policies, and the courts' interpretation of them, have had varying effects on tribes' inherent sovereignty. Although current... |
1991 |
Yes |
Philip S. Deloria , Nell Jessup Newton |
The Criminal Jurisdiction of Tribal Courts over Non-member Indians |
38 Federal Bar News and Journal 70 (March, 1991) |
Throughout most of the history of federal Indian law, the United States Supreme Court has expressed extraordinary deference to Congress as the principal policymaker in Indian affairs, while often filling in gaps with imaginative characterizations of congressional intent or relying implicitly on its own power to create federal common law. Judicially... |
1991 |
Yes |
Peter Fabish |
The Decline of Tribal Sovereignty: the Journey from Dicta to Dogma in Duro v. Reina, 110 S.ct. 2053 (1990) |
66 Washington Law Review 567 (April, 1991) |
Abstract: In Duro v. Reina, the Supreme Court held that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over Indians committing crimes within their territorial jurisdiction, but not belonging to their tribe. This holding is incompatible with judicial precedent as well as contemporary executive and congressional policy. The decision also creates serious... |
1991 |
Yes |
Sidney L. Harring |
Crazy Snake and the Creek Struggle for Native American Legal Culture and American Law |
34 American Journal of Legal History 365 (October, 1990) |
The continued strength of Native American culture in the 1980s has a clear relationship to the renewed attention that sovereignty has received as the key unifying concept in both Indian law (and here I mean both federal Indian law and tribal law) and in tribal politics. The precise nature of this relationship is complex, for in tribal society... |
1990 |
Yes |
Janice Brandt |
Indian Sovereignty--beyond the "Well-pleaded Complaint Rule" |
15 Thurgood Marshall Law Review 169 (Fall 1989-Spring, 1990) |
The State of Oklahoma (State) brought a cause of action against the Chickasaw Nation (Nation) and its agent Jan Graham to recover excise taxes on bingo games and from the sales of cigarettes on the Nation's property. This case raises important issues of federal jurisdiction and the doctrine of Indian sovereignty. There are two provisions which set... |
1990 |
Yes |
F. Henry Ellis, III |
Indian Tribal Sovereignty and the Tribal Courts: the Myth and the Reality |
13 Suffolk Transnational Law Journal 714 (Spring, 1990) |
The United States and the Native American Indian tribes have a unique relationship; the Indian tribes represent politically autonomous populations who possess their own sovereignty, and yet they reside within the borders of the United States. The independent status of the Indians has been recognized by the United States Constitution and was... |
1990 |
Yes |
Detlev F. Vagts, John King Gamble, Jr., Pennsylvania State University |
Reservations and Interpretative Declarations to Multilateral Treaties. By Frank Horn. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, Tokyo: North-holland, 1988. Pp. Xxix, 514. Index. DisTributed by Elsevier Science Publishing Company |
84 American Journal of International Law 297 (January, 1990) |
This is a very ambitious book addressing a topic of growing importance. Dr. Horn's goal is to approach the question of reservations, describing how the phenomenon of reservations has developed into a problem of international law which has resulted in the need to elaborate a satisfactory regulation of the subject-matter (p. 2). The work is... |
1990 |
Yes |
Kenneth D. Nelson |
Wisconsin, Walleye, and the Supreme Law of the Land: an Overview of the Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights in Northern Wisconsin |
11 Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy 381 (Fall, 1990) |
Treaties are a part of the supreme law of the land. This comment discusses rights reserved by the Chippewa Indians in treaties made with the United States government during the 19th century and the current controversy surrounding those rights. Specifically, this comment focuses on the hunting, fishing, and gathering rights reserved in the treaties... |
1990 |
Yes |
Mike Townsend |
Congressional Abrogation of Indian Treaties: Reevaluation and Reform |
98 Yale Law Journal 793 (February, 1989) |
We look at the moral or spiritual side of a treaty. . . . Treaties mean words that nobody can get around, get over, get under. Richard Real Bird, Chairman, Crow Tribe It is long settled that the provisions of an act of Congress, passed in the exercise of its constitutional authority, . . . if clear and explicit, must be upheld by the courts, even... |
1989 |
Yes |
Judith Resnik |
Dependent Sovereigns: Indian Tribes, States, and the Federal Courts |
56 University of Chicago Law Review 671 (Spring, 1989) |
Introduction I. Creating the Boundaries of Jurisprudential Thought About the Federal Courts A. A Course of Study B. Premises of the Law of Federal Courts II. The Indian Tribes' Relationship to the United States III. Reasons to Give Voice A. The Interdependencies of Norms 1. Sovereignty and Membership 2. New and Old Customs 3. Codification of... |
1989 |
Yes |
Curtis Berkey |
Indian Nations under Legal Assault |
16-WTR Human Rights 18 (Winter 1989) |
During the last ten years, the sovereign authority of American Indian governments has come under legal attack. On many reservations, non-Indians comprise a large part of the population, and Indian governments naturally assert authority over them as part of the inherent and historic power of territorial self-government. Non-Indians are increasingly... |
1989 |
Yes |
Carl Ullman |
New Players in the Public Borrowing Game: Tax and Sovereignty Considerations as Freely Associated States and Indian Tribes Approach Wall Street |
11 University of Hawaii Law Review 111 (Fall, 1989) |
In recent years public borrowing in the United States has grown dramatically as authorities at all levels find themselves in greater need of significant capital accumulations in order to meet the needs of constituencies that have been either assigned to them or secured to them by the electoral process. This fiscal activity, encouraged by favorable... |
1989 |
Yes |
Frank R. Pommersheim |
The Crucible of Sovereignty: Analyzing Issues of Tribal Jurisdiction |
31 Arizona Law Review 329 (April, 1989) |
Tribal courts are of growing significance and importance throughout Indian country. This is especially true in light of the recent United States Supreme Court decisions in National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians and Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaPlante, which hold that tribal courts are the primary forums for adjudicating... |
1989 |
Yes |
Judith V. Royster , Rory SnowArrow Fausett |
Fr Native American Reservations: State Rights 'To Pursue Savage Hostile Indian Marauders Across the Border' |
59 University of Colorado Law Review 191 (Spring, 1988) |
L1-3TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction. 192 II. Criminal Jurisdiction. 196 A. Off-Reservation Jurisdiction. 196 B. Jurisdiction Within Reservation Boundaries. 198 1. Tribal Jurisdiction. 199 2. State and Federal Jurisdiction. 209 a. Public Law 280 Reservations. 210 b. Non-Public Law 280 Reservations. 220 3. Summary. 223 C. On-Reservation Arrest for... |
1988 |
Yes |
Judith V. Royster , Rory SnowArrow Fausett |
Fr Native American Reservations: State Rights 'To Pursue Savage Hostile Indian Marauders Across the Border' |
59 University of Colorado Law Review 191 (Spring, 1988) |
L1-3TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction. 192 II. Criminal Jurisdiction. 196 A. Off-Reservation Jurisdiction. 196 B. Jurisdiction Within Reservation Boundaries. 198 1. Tribal Jurisdiction. 199 2. State and Federal Jurisdiction. 209 a. Public Law 280 Reservations. 210 b. Non-Public Law 280 Reservations. 220 3. Summary. 223 C. On-Reservation Arrest for... |
1988 |
Yes |
Connie K. Haslam |
Indian Sovereignty: Confusion Prevails-california v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 107 S Ct. 1083 (1987). |
63 Washington Law Review 169 (January, 1988) |
The courts have failed to give the Indian tribes of the United States a straight answer on the boundaries of Indian sovereignty. The predominant issue before the courts is how to balance the disparate interests of the federal government, the states, and the tribes themselves. The courts have battled to balance the interests of each party involved... |
1988 |
Yes |
Paul A. Matteoni |
Native Indian Villages: the Question of Sovereign Rights |
28 Santa Clara Law Review 875 (Fall, 1988) |
The judiciary of Alaska is confronted with independent Native Indian groups demanding enforcement of claims to sovereign rights. Despite numerous opportunities afforded in recent cases, the Alaskan courts have been unwilling to rule directly on this issue. These Alaskan Native Indian groups believe they are entitled to the identical rights,... |
1988 |
Yes |
H. Barry Holt |
Property Clause Regulation off Federal Lands: an Analysis, and Possible Application to Indian Treaty Rights |
19 Environmental Law 295 (Winter, 1988) |
I. INTRODUCTION. 295 II. EXTERNAL REGULATION UNDER THE PROPERTY CLAUSE. 296 A. Generally. 296 1. Traditional Cases. 297 2. Traditional Challenges. 299 a. State Power. 300 b. Takings. 301 B. Regulatory Purposes. 302 1. Nuisance Abatement. 302 2. Protection of Federal Property. 303 3. Protection of Federal Purposes. 305 C. Application. 308 1.... |
1988 |
Yes |
|
Sovereign Immunity-Indian Tribal Sovereignty-Tribes Not Immune from Suits Arising from Off-reservation Business Activity-padilla v. Pueblo of Acoma, 107 N.m. 174, 754 P.2d 845 (1988). |
102 Harvard Law Review 556 (December, 1988) |
Indian tribes have enjoyed a quasi-sovereign status since the Supreme Court decision in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia in 1831. Chief Justice Marshall, describing the nature of this status, explained that, although the tribes are nations, they are domestic dependent nations, and their relationship to the national government resembles that of a... |
1988 |
Yes |
|
Sovereign Immunity-Indian Tribal Sovereignty-Tribes Not Immune from Suits Arising from Off-reservation Business Activity-padilla v. Pueblo of Acoma, 107 N.m. 174, 754 P.2d 845 (1988). |
102 Harvard Law Review 556 (December, 1988) |
Indian tribes have enjoyed a quasi-sovereign status since the Supreme Court decision in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia in 1831. Chief Justice Marshall, describing the nature of this status, explained that, although the tribes are nations, they are domestic dependent nations, and their relationship to the national government resembles that of a... |
1988 |
Yes |
Thomas P. McLish |
Tribal Sovereign Immunity: Searching for Sensible Limits |
88 Columbia Law Review 173 (January, 1988) |
A non-Indian child is struck and killed by a motorboat while swimming near an unmarked marina owned and operated by an Indian tribe. Her parents' suit for wrongful death is dismissed without consideration of the merits of the claim. The tribe's immunity from suit bars the claim, even though the tribe was engaged in an off-reservation commercial... |
1988 |
Yes |
M. Allen Core |
Tribal Sovereignty: Federal Court Review of Tribal Court Decisions-judicial Intrusion into Tribal Sovereignty |
13 American Indian Law Review 175 (1988) |
In the latest developments concerning the authority of tribes to self-govern, the United States Supreme Court has moved closer to a position that allows the federal judiciary to act as appellate courts for decisions of tribal courts. In National Farmers Union Insurance Co. v. Crow Tribe, the Supreme Court concluded that the question of whether the... |
1988 |
Yes |
Patricia Owen |
Who Is an Indian? Duro v. Rein's Examination of Tribal Sovereignty and Criminal Jurisdiction over Nonmember Indians |
1988 Brigham Young University Law Review 161 (1988) |
Congress and the courts have grappled with Indian issues since the formation of our country. The difficulty of resolving Indian issues stems partially from the difference between what being an Indian' signifies to the Native American and what it signifies to Congress and to the courts. The determination of who is an Indian directly impacts the... |
1988 |
Yes |
H. Barry Holt |
Can Indians Hunt in National Parks? Determinable Indian Treaty Rights and United States v. Hicks |
16 Environmental Law 207 (Winter, 1986) |
The arrest and conviction of two members of the Quinault Indian Tribe for killing elk within Olympic National Park raise specific questions about the nature and extent of Indian treaty rights and the federal government's policy toward the treaty rights. This Article discusses the interpretation of Indian treaties, the nature of the rights reserved... |
1986 |
Yes |
Andrew S. Montgomery |
Tribal Sovereignty and Congressional Dominion: Rights-of-way for Gas Pipelines on Indian Reservations |
38 Stanford Law Review 195 (November, 1985) |
Justice Black stated, in an important Indian law case of over 20 years ago, Great nations, like great men, should keep their word. The great nations and men might do well to heed the Justice's warning, if only they knew what their word was. But for natural resource developers and Indian tribes, the nation's word has become obscure. Indian law... |
1985 |
Yes |
Laurie Reynolds |
Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights: the Role of Tribal Sovereignty and Preemption |
62 North Carolina Law Review 743 (April, 1984) |
American Indian tribes enjoy a federally-protected quasi-sovereign status within the states in which they are located. The vague limits of tribal sovereignty, however, result in overlapping state laws and tribal regulations and corresponding tensions between state and tribal authorities. Professor Reynolds suggests a presumption of tribal... |
1984 |
Yes |
Sharon O'Brien |
The Medicine Line: a Border Dividing Tribal Sovereignty, Economies and Families |
53 Fordham Law Review 315 (November, 1984) |
AGAIN and again Blackfeet warriors fleeing northward after a raiding attack watched with growing amazement as the pursuing troops of the United States Army came to a sudden, almost magical stop. Again and again, fleeing southward, they saw the same thing happen as the Canadian Mounties reined to an abrupt halt. The tribes of the Blackfeet... |
1984 |
Yes |
Michael C. Blumm |
Fulfilling the Parity Promise: a Perspective on Scientific Proof, Economic Cost, and Indian Treaty Rights in the Approval of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program |
13 Environmental Law 103 (Fall, 1982) |
I. INTRODUCTION. 104 II. THE FAILURE OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT AND THE REMEDIAL NATURE OF THE 4(H) PROGRAM. 108 III. AN OVERVIEW OF THE 4(H) PROGRAM APPROVAL STANDARDS. 112 IV. FISHERIES/HYDROPOWER BALANCING AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TEXTUAL CONSISTENCY. 118 V. INTERPRETING SOME OF THE SPECIFIC PROGRAM APPROVAL STANDARDS. 124 A. The... |
1982 |
Yes |
|
In Defense of Tribal Sovereign Immunity |
95 Harvard Law Review 1058 (March, 1982) |
The judicial doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity traditionally has protected Indian tribes from suit in state and federal courts. In the landmark case of United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, the Supreme Court held that the Indian Nations are exempt from suit without Congressional authorization. More recently, however, in... |
1982 |
Yes |
Anthony A. Lusvardi |
Montana v. United States-effects on Liberal Treaty Interpretation and Indian Rights to Lands Underlying Navigable Waters |
57 Notre Dame Lawyer 689 (1982) |
Title to lands underlying navigable waters gives the titleholder important rights and powers, including mineral rights and jurisdictional powers. Indian rights to such lands have been a frequently litigated question. This issue has arisen when an Indian tribe has claimed title to lands underlying navigable waters based upon a treaty executed and... |
1982 |
Yes |
Karl Forsgaard |
Statutory Construction-wildlife Protection Versus Indian Treaty Hunting Rights-united States v. Fryberg, 622 F.2d 1010 (9th Cir.), Cert.denied, 449 U.s. 1004 (1980). |
57 Washington Law Review 225 (December, 1981) |
While hunting for deer on his reservation, Dean Fryberg, an Indian, shot and killed a bald eagle. Although he had a treaty right to hunt on the Tulalip Reservation under the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliot, Fryberg was charged by information with taking a bald eagle in violation of the Eagle Protection Act of 1940. He did not possess a permit which... |
1981 |
Yes |
Michael P. Gross |
Indian Self-determination and Tribal Sovereignty: an Analysis of Recent Federal Indian Policy |
56 Texas Law Review 1195 (August, 1978) |
If one were to pick a dominant theme in American history it would be the nation's attempt to create a workable national entity that can accomodate the independent interests of individuals and their communities. In the century following the American Revolution, that theme focused on the relationship between a national government and the states.... |
1978 |
Yes |
Reid Peyton Chambers , Monroe E. Price |
Regulating Sovereignty: Secretarial Discretion and the Leasing of Indian Lands |
26 Stanford Law Review 1061 (May, 1974) |
Indian trust land can be leased by its tribal or individual owner only after the Secretary of the Interior has approved the transaction. Surface leasing of Indian land is governed principally by 25 U.S.C. ยง 415; enacted in 1955, section 415 permits leasing for a wide range of purposes--public, religious, educational, recreational, residential or... |
1974 |
Yes |