Tribal Sovereignty and the Recognition Power

Sorenson, Lance

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3066221

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Supreme Court Ruling in 1978 ( Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe ) set a legal precedent by stating that Indigenous tribal courts did not have criminal jurisdiction over non‐Indigenous peoples for conduct that occurred on Indigenous lands (Deer, 2018; Harmon, 2019). The ruling in Oliphant was then extended in a 1990 Supreme Court case ( Duro v. Reina ), which held that Indigenous tribal courts lacked criminal jurisdiction over Indigenous peoples who were not members of the tribe; however, shortly after the ruling in Duro , Congress amended the Indian Civil Rights Act, which granted Indigenous tribes criminal jurisdiction over Indigenous peoples who were not members of the tribe (Sorensen, 2017). This amendment set the stage for the landmark Supreme Court case, United States v. Lara , in which the Supreme Court upheld the legislative constitutionality, allowing for a nonmember Indigenous and charged with federal assault of a federal officer to be convicted in a tribal court as well as in the federal court system (Rolnick, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Settler colonial origins of intimate partner violence in Indigenous communities

Behrendt

2022

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indigenous women in the United States experience disproportionately higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) compared to their non‐Indigenous counterparts. Through a framework of settler colonialism, this article examines how settler colonial gender practices disrupted and eroded generational patterns of gender roles and power relationships within Indigenous communities, contributing over time to today's higher levels of IPV perpetrated against Indigenous women. I argue that future research on IPV must attend to the historical, contemporary, and legal impacts of settler colonial policies and laws that contribute to increased rates of violence within marginalized and racialized communities. In this article, I first review dominant theories of IPV, then review how a theoretical framework of settler colonialism expands our understanding of IPV in Indigenous communities, and, finally, address the impacts of federal policies on Indigenous sovereign rights regarding violence against women.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Settler colonial origins of intimate partner violence in Indigenous communities

Behrendt

2022

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, only the federal government had the right to purchase Native American lands. The first of the Marshall Trilogy cases actively limited Native American nations’ rights to manage land and resources (Sorenson 2017) and set the stage for future exploitation of natural resources on Native American lands, including fossils.…”

Section: Historical Federal Policies and Native American Lands: Late ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

History of Native American land and natural resource policy in the United States: impacts on the field of paleontology

Hensel

Olson²,

Monarrez³

et al. 2023

Paleobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We highlight the historical and contemporary policies that govern paleontological research on federally recognized Native American lands. The United States has a long history of fossil dispossession from Indigenous Peoples, and federal policies surrounding the management of Native American lands (i.e., reservations), and the geological resources therein, have changed through time. These changes reflect shifting popular and political ideologies regarding Native American nations’ sovereignty and self-governance. As of 2022, the United States has a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized Tribal entities, but that has not always been the case. Historians have divided post-contact Native American federal policy into distinct eras: Colonial Times to 1820, Native American Removal and Reservation (1820–1887), Allotments and Attempted Assimilation (1887–1934), Reorganization and Preservation (1934–1953), Termination and Relocation (1953–1968), and Tribal Self-Determination (1968–present). Documentation of how the federal policies from each of these eras continue to impact current paleontological research is limited. We summarize major legislative actions, court cases, and historical events that have affected paleontological resource management in Native American territory. We use this historical context to identify federal policy gaps and highlight legal nuances associated with fossil collection and ownership, particularly given the importance of fossils to some Native Americans’ cultural patrimony. Finally, we explore how these gaps affect scientific research and highlight best practices for conducting paleontological research on vertebrate, invertebrate, and paleobotanical body and trace fossils using the CARE (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (https://www.gida-global.org/care).

show abstract

“…The US continued in its quest to seize all Native land, even the small allotments they had promised to Native Americans. 14 By failing to respect treaties diplomatically formed between tribal governments and the US federal government, the US refuses to recognize the sovereignty of Native Nations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He challenged the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the Tribe, alleging criminal jurisdiction of tribal courts did not apply to him. 33 The Supreme Court agreed finding: Indians do not have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians absent affirmative delegation of such power by Congress...Indian tribes are prohibited from exercising both those powers of autonomous states that are expressly terminated by Congress and those powers "inconsistent with their status." 34 The statement "inconsistent with their status" never explicitly states what this status is.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Tribal Nations Regain Their Lost Sovereignty Through Diplomacy?

Heddesheimer¹

2022

J Stud Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although Native Nations possess their own form of self-government, restrictive acts passed by Congress and Court Case precedents limit tribal sovereignty. This paper examines unfulfilled treaties between the federal government and tribal nations and the lack of negotiations between both powers. Acts such as Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act in 1830 and the Indian Reorganization Act were created without tribal input, and therefore unpopular among Native Nations. Although Congress gradually worked towards encouraging state agencies and Native Nations to collaborate by passing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, these acts themselves were created and decided upon only by Congress without tribal input. US Supreme Court precedents also diminish Indian sovereignty through restrictive precedents that severely limit tribal governments’ judicial power. Due to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the primary legal precedent on the theory of Indian sovereignty, Native Nations lack the designation of a foreign state, and therefore a foreign sovereign. Precedents such as Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe and Montana v. United States limit Native Nations from possessing judicial and legislative authority over non-Indians on their land. Through cooperative agreements between tribal governments and local governments such as The Swinomish Cooperative Land Use Program and the Chippewa Flowage Joint Agency Management Plan Native Nations possess a means for their voice to be included when solving issues concerning them.

show abstract

Tribal Sovereignty and the Recognition Power

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Settler colonial origins of intimate partner violence in Indigenous communities

Settler colonial origins of intimate partner violence in Indigenous communities

History of Native American land and natural resource policy in the United States: impacts on the field of paleontology

Can Tribal Nations Regain Their Lost Sovereignty Through Diplomacy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About