Federal Indian Law

Anthropology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Killsback

Federal Indian law (FIL), also known as American Indian law, is the body of doctrine that regulates the political relationship between American Indian and Alaska Native governments and the federal government. FIL is best understood as the development of this “government-to-government” relationship, which intersects with other bodies of law like constitutional law, criminal law, and environmental law. FIL is comprised of legal doctrines, statutes, judicial decisions, treaties, and executive orders, all of which have direct influences on the rights and sovereignty of Indian tribes. In the United States there are 573 federally recognized tribes that are subject to the rights and privileges, as well as the consequences, of FIL. These federally recognized tribes are the third sovereign authority in the United States—the other two are states and the federal government—that retain inherent rights and that exercise and enjoy sovereignty and self-governance on their own lands. The historical development of FIL in the United States constitutes an important starting point in understanding the special relationship between Indian tribes and the federal government. The origins of FIL lay in three US Supreme Court cases known as the “Marshall trilogy,” after Chief Justice John Marshall, the presiding chief justice of Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). At that time, the primary questions centered on the sovereign rights of Indian tribes, that is, whether Indians have dominion over themselves and their lands. Throughout the development of FIL, until today, questions of Indian tribal sovereignty—or Indigenous nation sovereignty—remained contentious as Indians continued to fight for treaty rights, autonomy, and self-determination. FIL can be described as a series of wins and losses for American Indians in their fight for sovereign rights. In the end, however, the study of FIL is equally the study of how the United States was able to legally subjugate America’s indigenous peoples and acquire their lands. FIL is basically the study of America’s justification for Native America’s colonization and the genocide perpetrated against American Indians. The literature on FIL or American Indian law is vast, but the most valuable resources are authored by and for attorneys and for students of law. Although the disciplines of Native American and Indigenous studies encompass facets of American Indian and Indigenous peoples’ lives, scholarship in FIL has proven to be beneficial. The resources cited in this article represent some of the widely used texts that provide a solid foundation for studies in FIL.

Author(s):  
N. Bruce Duthu

United States law recognizes American Indian tribes as distinct political bodies with powers of self-government. Their status as sovereign entities predates the formation of the United States and they are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution as among the subjects (along with foreign nations and the several states) with whom Congress may engage in formal relations. And yet, despite this long-standing recognition, federal Indian law remains curiously ambivalent, even conflicted, about the legal and political status of Indian tribes within the U.S. constitutional structure. On the one hand, tribes are recognized as sovereign bodies with powers of self-government within their lands. On the other, long-standing precedents of the Supreme Court maintain that Congress possesses plenary power over Indian tribes, with authority to modify or even eliminate their powers of self-government. These two propositions are in tension with one another and are at the root of the challenges faced by political leaders and academics alike in trying to understand and accommodate the tribal rights to self-government. The body of laws that make up the field of federal Indian law include select provisions of the U.S. Constitution (notably the so-called Indian Commerce Clause), treaties between the United States and various Indian tribes, congressional statutes, executive orders, regulations, and a complex and rich body of court decisions dating back to the nation’s formative years. The noted legal scholar Felix Cohen brought much-needed coherence and order to this legal landscape in the 1940s when he led a team of scholars within the Office of the Solicitor in the Department of the Interior to produce a handbook on federal Indian law. The revised edition of Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law is still regarded as the seminal treatise in the field. Critically, however, this rich body of law only hints at the real story in federal Indian law. The laws themselves serve as historical and moral markers in the ongoing clash between indigenous and nonindigenous societies and cultures still seeking to establish systems of peaceful coexistence in shared territories. It is a story about the limits of legal pluralism and the willingness of a dominant society and nation to acknowledge and honor its promises to the first inhabitants and first sovereigns.


1982 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 423-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Anthony Ryan

The federal role in American Indian education has its basis in the treaty and commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution. In the early years of the republic it was recognized that, in the interest of protecting the borders of the Western frontier, the cost of war with the Indians was much higher than the cost of education. Until 1871, in accordance with international law, the United States treated with Indian tribes as separate nations. Commissioners appointed by the President frequently negotiated treaties with specific provisions for education, whose Christianizing and civilizing functions were perceived to be instrumental in obtaining amicable relations. Through the quid pro quo of the treaty process, the United States and Indian tribes established their peculiar relationship. This required that tribes surrender their external powers of sovereignty to the United States. Generally, this meant that they would not engage in treaties with competitive foreign powers such as Great Britain, France, or Spain. Treaties also acknowledged a federal title to their lands, subject to their rights of occupancy. When tribes ceded certain tracts of land that they already occupied, they were permitted to retain their internal powers of sovereignty and to receive financial consideration through specific treaty provisions and through a more generalized duty of care and protection from the United States. As a result, specific and general treaty provisions on education promised to educate American Indians. Appropriation acts pursuant to specific treaty provisions and for the Civilization Fund confirmed the basis and became the policy of the United States in its early federal role in American Indian education.


2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Valerie Lambert

American Indians are often overlooked in the story of the struggle for marriage equality in the United States. Using anthropological approaches, this article synthesizes and extends scholarly knowledge about Native participation in this struggle. With sovereign rights to control their own domestic relations, tribes have been actively revising their marriage laws, laws that reflect the range of reservation climates for sexual and gender-identity minorities. Debates in Indian Country over the rights of these minorities and over queering marriage bring to the fore issues that help define the distinctiveness of Native participation in the movement. These include issues of “tradition,” “culture,” and Christianity.


Elements ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Mooney

Federalism has played an important role in the explosion of legalized gambling in the United States in the last two decades. Indian gaming, in particular, has challenged state and national governments to come to terms with the place of American Indian tribes within the federalist system and organize a meaningful framework for the expansion of gaming on tribal lands. Now largely controlled by a federal statutory framework, Indian gaming has left states in a subordinate position in negotiating the establisment of major casino enterprises within their own borders. Confusion in states' rights during negotiations has further weakened their bargaining position, leading to extensive tribal casino development. The cooperation between states and tribes and states and casino corporations have facilitated casino proliferation throughout the United States, a trend that appears destined to contiue until the market is fully saturated.


Author(s):  
Patrick J. Reville ◽  
William A. Bottiglieri

The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution gave the federal government power over foreign trade, trade with the Indian tribes and trade “among several states.”  By lack of further enumeration and the passage of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, it would be reasonable to conclude that commerce that is truly intrastate would, therefore, be within the regulatory province of the states.  In fact, that was the interpretation initially reached and subsequently followed by the United States Supreme Court.  But in 1942, that changed and, over the course of the following 60+ years, to date the Court has concluded, by an expansive interpretation of that federal power granted, that Congress and the federal government have virtually unbridled power to regulate not only those areas that would traditionally be considered “commerce” or “interstate commerce”, but, moreover, in areas that seemingly have nothing to do with commerce, interstate, or otherwise.  This paper will trace the journey that the justices have taken down this judicial interstate highway and the methods that the federal government has employed to achieve its objectives.  Hence, the subtitle of this paper:  From Expansion to Extortion.


Author(s):  
John Iceland

This chapter provides a brief historical overview of American Indians in the United States, an examination of patterns of identification among people with American Indian heritage, a description of this group’s socioeconomic profile, and a discussion of the factors that help explain this profile. Overall, American Indians continue to experience, on average, low levels of educational attainment and income and high levels of poverty. A legacy of past racism, contemporary discrimination, and continued spatial and economic social isolation especially on and around reservations likely explain the disadvantaged position of many American Indians today.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document