12209 research outputs found
Sort by
A Historical Review of Congressional Plenary Power and Tribal Treaties and the Implications Following \u3ci\u3eHerrera\u3c/i\u3e
No full textCutting the Gordian Knot of Civil Liability: Cross-Deputization Agreements as a Remedy to Jurisdiction and Liability Concerns for Indian Country in Oklahoma
No full textWinner, Best Appellate Brief in the 2024 Native American Law Student Association Moot Court Competition
No full textOklahoma\u27s Constitutional Search and Seizure--It\u27s Always Time for Enlightenment
No full textOklahoma has an unusual constitutional structure that has created a rather bizarre anomaly: Oklahomans simultaneously enjoy greater-than- federal constitutional protections of search and seizure (says the Oklahoma Supreme Court) and state constitutional protections in lockstep with United States Supreme Court interpretation of the Fourth Amendment (says the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals). While such quantum weirdness does little to commend Oklahoma’s structure of dueling high courts, it provides excellent fodder for reflecting on why each state ought to have robust, independent interpretation of its own constitution. It is not because it necessarily leads to different rights structures—it may or may not—it is because independent thought is the core principle of enlightenment
Analyzing the Invocation of the Force Majeure Clause Defense in Natural Gas Contract Dispute
No full textHomelands Not Graveyards
No full textWithin the last five years, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken up several transformative cases affecting Native nations and federal Indian law jurisprudence. The Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Navajo Nation is no different. This Article examines that decision and situates it within that legal history as well as the realities of present-day water resource availability. While recent decisions have shown the Court’s willingness to confirm fundamental components of federal Indian law, such as the legal tests for determining the persistence of reservation and the authority of Congress to enact the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Court’s examination of the federal trust responsibility, however, has followed a different path. This Article focuses on the foundation of federal Indian trust law and identifies the aspects of the Court’s decision that depart from basic principles of trust law. Those departures ultimately make it more difficult for Native nations to seek redress for the federal government’s failure to act on behalf of tribal requests for assistance. The scope of the federal trust responsibility certainly cannot amount to a blank check to tribal communities to obtain whatever they seek, but it also cannot be a mirage—visible from afar but disappearing upon closer inspection. This Article concludes with a warning arising out of the wicked problem caused by the collision between the realities of climate change accelerated water scarcity, strong tribal legal rights to water, and the increasing water needs of non-Indian communities