The Case Of Minnesota Vs. Mille Lacs Band Of Ojibwes

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

Governor Henry Hastings Sibley is a memorable figure in Minnesota history, but one that is laced with controversy and suspicion. These controversies extend from his early career in fur trading to his leadership of Minnesota’s militia in the Great Sioux Uprising of 1862. The criticism of Governor Sibley was mainly because of his hesitation to engage with the Indians and his constant complaints to territorial governor Alexander Ramsey about lack of men and supplies, but is simply not justified when the full scope of his problems are understood.

By 1940, Native Americans had experienced many changes and counter-changes in their legal status in the United States. Over the course of the nineteenth century, most tribes lost part or all of their ancestral lands and were forced to live on reservations. Following the American Civil War, the federal government abrogated most of the tribes’ remaining sovereignty and required communal lands to be allotted to individuals. The twentieth century also saw great changes for Native Americans, such as the Citizenship Act and the Indian New Deal. Alison R. Bernstein examines how the Second World War affected the status and lives of Native Americans in American Indians and World War II: Toward a New Era in Indian Affairs. Bernstein argues

The first argument Faragher presents in Sugar Creek: Life on the Illinois Prairie is the warring off of Native Americans with Anglo-Americans. The Kickapoo, an Indian tribe that settled in Sangamon Country, a county full of many resources that were vital for survival. The Kickapoo knew the land and hunting was their number one economic activity (Faragher 20). Fur trading became an important market between Native Americans and the

Long ago on the great plains, the buffalo roamed and the Native Americans lived amongst each other. They were able to move freely across the lands until the white men came and concentrated them into certain areas. Today there are more than five-hundred different tribes with different beliefs and history. Native Americans still face problems about the horrific history they went through and today 's discrimination. The removal of American Indian tribes is one of the most tragic events in American history. There are many treaties that have been signed by American representatives and people of Indian tribes that guaranteed peace and the values of the Indian territories. The treaties were to assure that fur trade would continue without interruption. The American people wanting Indian land has led to violent conflict between the two. Succeeding treaties usually forced the tribes to give up their land to the United States government. There were laws made for Native American Displacement that didn’t benefit the Native Americans, these laws still have long lasting effects on them today, and there was a huge number of Native Americans killed for many reasons.

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)

This tension in race relationships is the third theme of Minnesota’s history post-1880. For example, the tense relationship between the Minnesotans and the Native Americans in the state. One of the main tensions that has plagued the relationship for many years in about Native Americans traditional fishing rights. Since the beginning of the government agency that sought to preserve game, fish, and other natural resources (Child, My Grandfather’s Knocking Sticks: Ojibwe Family life and labor on the Reservation, 86). Throughout the late 19th and 20th century, the Native Americans and Minnesotans have created many agreements about how and where the Native Americans could fish. One example of this is how Red Lake was partitioned to the natives. In this partition, the Native Americans could not fish or access the eastern portion of Upper Red Lake (Child, My Grandfather’s Knocking Sticks, 86). In addition, the tensions between the Native Americans and Minnesotans over fishing led to lawsuits and legal action by the Natives. These lawsuits attempted to establish that the treaties signed in the past gave natives the right to fish and sell their fish off the reservation (Child, My Grandfather’s Knocking Sticks, 104). One of these cases reached the United States Supreme Court in 1999. This case ruled in favor of the Natives and

Tribal sovereignty is a highly debated concept and an important aspect of Native American society. It refers to a tribe’s power to govern itself, manage its membership, and regulate tribal relations. As Joanna Barker stated, “Sovereignty carries the awful stench of colonization.” Tribal sovereignty must be traced to the beginning of colonization in North America. Colonizing nations asserted sovereignty over indigenous people and took away their independent status. The term “tribal sovereignty” carries with it multiples meanings and implications for tribal nations (Cobb, 2005).

When first considering the Navajo-Hopi land dispute as a topic of research, I anticipated a relatively light research paper discussing the local skirmishes between the two tribes. However, my research has yielded innumerable volumes of facts, figures and varying viewpoints on a struggle that has dominated the two tribes for over 100 years. The story is an ever-changing one, evolving from local conflict to forcible relocation to big business interests. The incredible breadth of the dispute's history makes it impossible to objectively cover the entire progression from all viewpoints. I will therefore focus on current issues - and their historical causes - facing the two tribes as they mutually approach

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe currently fights to save its only water source from natural gas and oil contamination. This troubling current event has a somewhat forgotten historical analogue where very similar themes presented themselves. The Kinzua Dam Controversy, which took place in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, resulted in the displacement of over 600 Seneca Indian families and the acquisition of a large tract of traditional Seneca Land for dam building. Additionally, the acquisition of Seneca land represented a breach of “The Treaty with the Six Nations of 1794,” which explicated prevented such action by the US Government. The dam and its construction, which primarily benefitted Pittsburg, inspired a heated discourse concerning the ethics of native relocation.

The Firm represented the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe in successfully moving for summary judgment regarding a breach of contract action against a gaming management contractor. The case is Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Bettor Racing, Inc. and J. Randy Gallo, case number 2013-11, in the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribal Court.

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

American Indians and Alaskan Natives have a relationship with the federal government that is unique due to the “trust relationship” between the US and American Indians/Alaskan Natives (AI/ANs) who are entitled to health care services provided by the US government by virtue of their membership in sovereign Indian nations. In order to contextualize the complex nature of Indian health programs it is necessary to become versed in the political and legal status of Indian tribes. Through numerous constitutional, legislative, judicial, executive rulings, and orders that were largely associated with the succession of land and subsequent treaty rights; the health care of AI/ANs has been one of many responsibilities guaranteed by the federal government. The foundations of which can be traced back to the year 1787. The ceded land has been interpreted in courts to mean that healthcare and services were in a sense prepaid by AI/AN tribes and 400 million acres of land. The misconception of “free healthcare” and a conservative political disdain from so called entitlement programs have also led to misconceptions regarding the federal government’s responsibility to provide health care and services to AI/ANs. Rhoades (2000) has argued that tribal sovereignty is the overarching principle guiding Indian health care on a daily basis.1 This paper will examine the history surrounding federally mandated healthcare to AI/ANs, pertinent issues of sovereignty, as well as case studies in tribal

Long ago on the great plains, the buffalo roamed and the Native Americans lived amongst each other. They were able to move freely across the lands until the white men came and concentrated them into certain areas. Today there are more than five-hundred different tribes with different beliefs and history. Native Americans still face problems about the horrific history they went through and today 's discrimination. The removal of American Indian tribes is one of the most tragic events in American history. There are many treaties that have been signed by American representatives and people of Indian tribes that guaranteed peace and the values of the Indian territories. The treaties were to assure that fur trade would continue without interruption. The American people wanting Indian land has led to violent conflict between the two. Succeeding treaties usually forced the tribes to give up their land to the United States government. There were laws made for Native American Displacement that didn’t benefit the Native Americans, these laws still have long lasting effects on them today, and there was a huge number of Native Americans killed for many reasons.

The main problem discussed in this article is the issue of the United States supreme court has removed to right of tribes to arrest and prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes on tribal lands. The tribal justice system yields very little power over arrest and prosecution even over its own members often time U.S. attorneys take control over cases since tribal courts are unable to sentence defendants to more than three years. Non-Indians who commit crimes on tribal land, with the premises of this article being rape, often operate with little to no impunity.