Indian law cases await Supreme Court

FROM THE ARCHIVE

Indian law cases await Supreme Court

Facebook Twitter
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2001

Once the Supreme Court returns from its vacation next month, many in Indian Country will be paying close attention to the rulings handed down by the nine black-robed Justices.

Traditionally known as a supporter of Indian rights, the Court in recent years has taken what tribal leaders, lawyers and advocates say is a dangerous approach to sovereignty. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, in July said the court has taken a "real departure from sovereign rights."

"If this trend continues, Indian Country will no longer be Indian Country," he said somberly.

The prediction might quickly come true, if the October 2000 term is any indication. Of the six cases accepted by the Court, four resulted in negative decisions.

And in a term filled a number of high-profile rulings whose split decisions had court observers fumbling to explain, all four were unanimous. Whether it was taxation or sovereign immunity, the Court handed down its Indian law decisions with confidence, although not always with clarity.

The term got off on a harrowing start in March when the Court unanimously rejected an attempt by the Department of Interior to keep private its communications with tribes in northern California and southern Oregon. The fight over freedom of information soon turned into a war over water, however, as farmers in the Klamath Basin protested the government's support of its trust responsibilities to the tribes.

Another unanimous decision came as the Court ruled against the Citizen Potawatomi Nation of Oklahoma. The tribe waived its sovereign immunity by signing a contract, the Court said in May.

May found the Court siding with a non-Indian business located on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona. In a case with nationwide implications, the Court ruled the tribe could not tax the business.

Victory for Indian Country finally came in June, when the Court affirmed the Coeur d'Alene Tribe's right to the southern third of a lake in Idaho. Yet here the win was slim as the tribe escaped a loss by just one vote.

Any hope for a continued success was soon dashed with another decision affecting tribal authority. The Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe has no authority to hear lawsuits brought against Nevada state officials, said the Court in a June ruling that was as equally conflicting as it was clear.

One case heard last term has yet to be decided. Two Oklahoma tribes -- the Choctaw Nation and the Chickasaw Nation -- want to be exempt from certain gaming taxes, a position the federal government opposes.

Once the Court returns to work, it will begin accepting new cases. One already on the docket is an appeal by two Maine tribes who want their communications with the federal government concerning water quality kept private.

One issue the Court won't be hearing -- to the joy of Alaska Natives -- affects subsistence rights. Alaska Governor Tony Knowles (D) has decided not to appeal the Katie John case, having lost several times in federal court.

Join Native America Calling today at 1pm Eastern Standard Time as Jackie Johnson of the National Congress of American Indians discusses the Supreme Court and Indian law.

Relevant Links:
The Supreme Court - http://www.supremecourtus.gov
Native America Calling - http://www.nativecalling.org

Only on Indianz.Com:
Supreme Court Roundup: The 2000-2001 Term (6/19)
Supreme Court: The 2000-2001 Term (3/6)