Attack Outline

Attack Outline
Federal Indian Law

1. Interpretation Rules

   1. Cohen's Handbook

      1. Canons

         1. Treaties, agreements, and executive orders must be liberally construed in favor of the Indians

         2. All ambiguities are to be resolved in their favor

         3. Treaties and agreements are to be construed as the Indians would have understood them

         4. Tribal property rights and sovereignty are preserved unless Congress’ intent to the contrary is clear and unambiguous

      2. Principles of Sovereignty

         1. All Indian tribes possess in the first instance all the powers of any sovereign state

         2. Conquest renders the tribe subject to the legislative power of the US and in substance terminates the external powers of sovereignty of the tribe

         3. These powers are subject to qualification by treaties and express legislation by Congress but save as thus expressly qualified full powers of internal sovereignty are vested in the Indian tribe

   2. Statutes, Treaties

      1. Subsequent law does not change previous treaty unless it is explicit. Ex Parte Crow Dog.

      2. Treaty should be read as “unlettered” people (those that agreed to the treaties) understood it. United States v. Winans

      3. To determine whether Congress intended a statute to abrogate treaty rights, there must be a clear statement. (Court ignores clear intent of Congress). Menominee Tribe v. US.

      4. Instead of a clear statement, Court can find that Congress abrogated treaty right by finding indication that Congress considered the conflict, and resolved the conflict in favor of abrogation. (But court still claims to be relying on clear statement). US v. Dion.

         1. Specified exceptions raise inference that they are the only exceptions.

      5. Repeals by implication are not favored. Must be clear evidence that Congress wanted to repeal. Morton v. Mancari.

   3. Plenary Power

      1. Established by Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock. Court cannot inquire into Congress’ decision to abrogate.

      2. Morton v. Mancari – plenary power limited to rational review.

      3. US v. Sioux Nation – Court can look at Congressional motivations to determine whether abrogation was lawful (needs to be a bargain for land sales to not be a taking)

   4. Statutes of General Applicability

      1. General Act not to be construed to repeal a previous particular act, unless there is express reference to previous legislation on the subject, or necessary inconsistency. Ex Parte Crow Dog.

      2. Case dictum: unless Congress specially says otherwise, general acts of Congress apply to Indians.

      3. Reich v. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Comm’n: Generally, general applicability laws apply to Indians unless they conflict with treaty rights or self-governance.

2. Land Claims

   1. Sue Federal Gov for failure to uphold trust responsibility

      1. Need:

         1. To be an Indian Tribe

         2. Cause of Action (separate from statute waiving sovereign immunity). APA is a source for this, but only allows injunctive relief (no $$$). Court has at times recognized the federal...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Federal Indian Law Outlines.