Case Study: The Coeur D Ale Tribe

In 1990 the Ojibwe tribe sued the state of Minnesota due to the fact that Minnesota retained the hunting, fishing, and gathering

The conditions and ulterior destiny of the Indian tribes within the limits of some of our states have become objects of much interest.( 13) It is rather our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained on body or in mind.(17) The Cherokee nation then is a distinct community occupying its own territory in which the laws of georgia can have no force and which the citizens of georgia(19)

We all know that as U.S citizens, we must abide and follow the laws written in the Constitution. That being said, when the treaties in the mid 1800’s were written and passed, they allowed certain unalienable rights to federally recognized indigenous nations. These federally recognized tribes were placed on reservations and were allowed to have a separate law system than the state they reside in. However, these nations must still

The facts of this case is the Ojibwe Indians were entitled to the treaty rights and the rights were not extinguished when Minnesota was admitted as a state in 1958. (Cheeseman H. R. 2013, pp. 16)

In Chapter 6, Wilkins discusses how the disclaimer clauses. These clauses keep states from exercising authority on Indian land (180). They are an “important but often overlooked tool in the arsenal available to tribes to assert their own sovereignty against state threats” (177). A specific example of a disclaimer clause is Wisconsin’s territorial disclaimer of 1836 which prohibited territories or states from having any authority on Indian land (180). In Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council (1959) it was declared that Indian tribes actually have a higher status than states (179). This was a major victory for Indians in their fight for sovereignty. United States v. Rickert (1903) was also a win for sovereignty in that the Court prohibited South Dakota from taxing Indian land (185).After the verdict in Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996), the balance of power between state and federal government leaned towards the states. Before this, negotiations with tribes had been conducted at the federal level and not with states (187). This was against the idea of sovereignty because now the states had more power over the tribes and could abuse that power for personal gain.

The United States Supreme Court ruled all Native American tribes had full legal rights to internally govern themselves, manage their affairs, as well as to engage in political and legal relationships with the federal government in the 1830s. Currently the United States Constitution Article I, Section 8, guarantees sovereign rights to the 566 federally recognized Indian nations and federal government laws require that the individual states that have Native Tribes living

Case Description: Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of South Florida, etc., vs. Carlos Bermudez, et al.,

In 1968 the Supreme Court case Menominee v. US aided the cause in ruling that states could not interfere with hunting and fishing rights on the Indians’ land which had been secured in previous treaties. In addition, settlements were made in the 1970s that paid damages to tribes whose land had been illegally seized by whites. However, there were still other issues that needed to be solved during this time.

What is known today as the Cherokee consists of three groups which derive from the same original tribes. The Cherokee or Oklahoma, The eastern band of Cherokee Indians and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees. However as of today the only organization that recognizes every individual group are the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs). Amongst the tribe’s strides have been taken to preserve the heritage and economic wellbeing of elders and new generations. Tensions between the Oklahoma tribes and United Keetoowah Band over land have been ongoing since 2012, the eastern band hopes to reach a compromise that can benefit all the groups involved. Land jurisdiction is one of BIA’s main concern, however the Cherokee government was shut down in 1907. With a nonexistent government and less than accurate idea whose jurisdiction is who’s the Cherokee have been force to

In 1989 a trial that lasted a week, regarding Chippewa tribal members hunting off tribal land at night was decided by the United States District Court of Appeals to not be allowed, due to safety concerns with lights produced from spotlight hunting. In 2012 during a meeting between the Chippewa tribal members and the DNR of the state of Wisconsin the topic of night hunting was brought up again. The tribal members requested night hunting be permitted because it would allow tribal members to efficiently capture deer for needed purposes. Once again there request was declined due to safety reasons. The tribe then petitioned to take the topic into federal court. A trial court agreed to hear the issue, this again lasted one week and the court agreed with the DNR to not allow night hunting. The Chippewa tribe then appealed and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the tribe. They came to this conclusion after reviewing the tribes regulations on the matter they ruled them safe (DNR,

The first issue posed in this case is whether the federal court should have applied the federal rules of procedure or whether the case should have been determined based on the rule of the state. The second issue revolved around the state that should be used in the case should the court opt to apply the rule of the state.

The Eighth Circuit of United States Court of Appeals did not apply the law correctly and the honorable Supreme Court shall rule in favor of the appellants .

The Nooksack Indian Tribe (will be called the Tribe throughout this proposal) has regressed in self-governance. Over the past four years disenrollment has been the core focus of the Tribe, which has caused discourse in self-determination. There is a dire need to reform the Tribe’s constitution for it does not address our inherent rights, describes who we are as Nooksack people, overcome political obstacles, conflict resolution, and leadership roles. The current constitution is based on the Indian Reorganization Act [IRA] cookie cutter constitutions made by the federal government. The IRA is connected to the assimilation of Indians through federal policy that has caused problems concerning tribal leadership, enrollment issues, gives authority

These groups express a common identity which is most often seen in cultural efforts and political protests of government policies. Consequently, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the first national organization to represent Native Americans, and the American Indian Movement (AIM), a radical but more visible pan-Indian group, were founded. The NCAI is still the most important civil rights organization for Native Americans while on the other hand the AIM is nationally recognized for its aggressive confrontations with the BIA and law enforcement agencies (pg. 150). Notably, both groups were effective in bringing attention to the Native American’s causes and in some cases they were successful in implementing change. Some of the protests and efforts carried out in an attempt to bring awareness to their causes included the fish-ins, seizure of Alcatraz Island, and the Battle of Wounded Knee II. Additionally, Indian Americans litigated many cases in efforts to gain sovereignty, many of which have been at the supreme court level. For example, United States v. Lara, a case tried before the Unites States Supreme Court, ultimately gave tribes the right to prosecute all American Indians, regardless of affiliation, for crimes that occur on reservations (pg. 154). Another major step towards resolving the issues of sovereignty was made with the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which resulted in 62.5 million dollars, 44 million acres of land, and the establishment of new for-profit corporations owned by Alaska Natives, consisting of large expanses of land with 12 regional associations and over 200 villages in exchange for their dismissal of collective

The event surrounding the Treaty of Indian Springs are all too familiar in u.s. Native relations. The United States has exploded divisions among native peoples since its creation as a government in a deed the British and other Europeans have done similarly since coming to the new continent. similar cases can be found in Central America and South America. The Creek Nation of the time of the early eighteen-hundreds with split between a relatively small group of assimilationist who believed that through prosperity and embrace of capitalism the Indians could remain whole and survive in the United States comma end traditionalists who believed that only through preservation of old ways could their uniqueness and way of life be preserved. Is clear