Law Outlines Federal Indian Law Outlines
Federal Indian Law outline explains statutory, common, and treatise law that impacts the limits to tribal self governance. Outline topics include: Constitutional and Canonical limits of interpretation, determining tribal and individual status, jurisdictional issues, federal takings, inherent sovereignty, land claims, and ICWA. Outline includes charts on jurisdiction to make navigating through the many tricky issues of criminal and civil jurisdiction easy. Also includes an attack outline and case ...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Federal Indian Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Constitutional and Canonical Limits on Federal Power
Federal Power in Indian Affairs
Has been described as plenary and exclusive
but less clear what that means
No obvious source of power
previously rooted in sovereignty and Indian Trust – now in the Indian Commerce Clause
Are there any limits to that power?
Originally not really, modernly its reviewable under rational review (Mancari)
a hazy issue
Constitutional Limits
Const. limits not often used bc the court has not been clear about them and its not clear what would limit Congressional power
fluctuates over time – two main doctrines – may be at odds with one another:
trust obligation
federal government incl. courts must enforce
plenary powers
ill defined
seems to act as a limit on judicial review of Congressional action
Standard Constitutional challenges
beyond legislative authority
run afoul of limitations such as the bill of rights
Non justicability
most Indian affairs decisions are political questions like foreign affairs
Theoretical arguments
Cohen framework places limits that Constitution doesn’t
international norms may act to place some limits on federal power
UN Resolution on Indigenous People of 2007
US has not signed (possibly bc the resolution called for redress for past wrongs)
Canonical Limits
Argued much more often than Constitutional Limits
They have been inconsistently enforced
the case law is often difficult to reconcile (see Menominee and Dion)
they seem very dependent on the courts view of a matter
Clear Statement Rule
typically seen where Congress has the theoretical power but where the court might think it unwise to do so
can cause problems bc Congress usually passes generally applicable laws
Clear that the US has the power to abrogate treaty rights. But how? Menominee says there must be a clear statement by Congress, Dion requires something less.
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. US
Tribe had under its treaty guaranteed rights to hunt and fish
After tribe was terminated Wisconsin charged several members for hunting and fishing without a license the question was: did termination terminate the tribes treaty rights?
Despite pretty clear indication that Congress intended on abrogate treaty rights (there were termination bills that said treaty rights to hunting and fishing would not be abrogated and Congress rejected those versions) the court …
...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Federal Indian Law Outlines.
Federal Indian Law outline explains statutory, common, and treatise law that impacts the limits to tribal self governance. Outline topics include: Constitutional and Canonical limits of interpretation, determining tribal and individual status, jurisdictional issues, federal takings, inherent sovereignty, land claims, and ICWA. Outline includes charts on jurisdiction to make navigating through the many tricky issues of criminal and civil jurisdiction easy. Also includes an attack outline and case ...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started