{"id":26353,"date":"2022-07-20T11:09:15","date_gmt":"2022-07-20T15:09:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indianz.com\/News\/?p=26353"},"modified":"2022-07-20T11:10:57","modified_gmt":"2022-07-20T15:10:57","slug":"albert-bender-u-s-supreme-court-takes-indian-country-back-in-time","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/indianz.com\/News\/2022\/07\/20\/albert-bender-u-s-supreme-court-takes-indian-country-back-in-time\/","title":{"rendered":"Albert Bender: U.S. Supreme Court takes Indian Country back in time"},"content":{"rendered":"
\r\n
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\"The\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\tThe Castro-Huerta Decision: Understanding the Case and Discussing Next Steps\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\t

An NCAI-NARF Roundtable ConversationThursday, July 7, 20222:00 – 3:30 p.m. EDTThe National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the Native American Rights…<\/p>\n\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/div>\n\t

\n\t\t\"YouTube\"\t\tYouTube\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
National Congress of American Indians: The Castro-Huerta Decision: Understanding the Case and Discussing Next Steps<\/a>\r\n<\/figcaption>\r\n
Rogue Supreme Court\u2019s latest Indian law decision a huge step back in time<\/div>\r\n
Wednesday, July 20, 2022<\/div>\r\n
By Albert Bender<\/div>\r\n
People's World<\/div>\r\n
peoplesworld.org<\/A><\/div>\r\n

<\/P>\r\nAs the retrograde Supreme Court has taken steps back in time on abortion rights<\/a>, blurring the time-enshrined separation between church and state, limiting the authority of the EPA<\/a> to control carbon emissions, lowering restrictions on the carrying of firearms<\/a>, and restricting Miranda rights, it has now also struck a reactionary blow against the tribal sovereignty of this land\u2019s Indigenous nations.

<\/P>\r\nThe court is imposing Trump\u2019s vision, through his appointees, on the U.S. which is out of touch with the vast majority of the nation\u2019s people. This is the rule of right-wing tyranny.

<\/P>\r\nOn Wednesday, June 29, the rogue court ruled in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta<\/em> that states have concurrent jurisdiction, with the federal government, in cases of non-Indians committing crimes against Indians on Native American reservations.

<\/P>\r\n

This granting of states\u2019 rights to intrude onto Native lands reverses over 200 years of one of the most enshrined tenets of federal Indian law, beginning with the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790 and proclaimed in the decision of Worcester v. Georgia<\/em> issued by the John Marshall court in 1832. <\/strong><\/div>\r\n

<\/P>\r\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\"U.S.\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\tU.S. Supreme Court decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\t

The U.S. Supreme Court released a long-awaited decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, a contentious case affecting tribal sovereignty.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/div>\n\t

\n\t\t\"Indianz.Com\"\t\tIndianz.Com\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\r\n

<\/P>\r\nThe Worcester<\/em> decision defined the relationship between Native nations, the federal government, and the states. Marshall stated as follows in laying the parameters of the relationship:

<\/P>\r\n\u201cThe Cherokee Nation, then, is a distinct community occupying its own territory\u2026in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties and with the acts of Congress.\u201d

<\/P>\r\nThe ruling in Worcester<\/em> established the principle that the relationship of Native nations to the federal government is that of nation-to-nation in which the individual states have no jurisdiction. Under this long-established principle, the states have no authority on Native American lands. The federal government has the sole authority to deal with Indian nations.

<\/P>\r\nThe ruling in Castro-Huerta<\/em> gives the states a foothold of jurisdiction in Indian Country. This is the first time in American history that states have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government in Indian Country. Under previous law, as a general rule, jurisdiction in Indian Country was limited to tribal governments and the United States government.

<\/P>\r\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\"Chuck\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\tChuck Hoskin: Cherokee Nation betrayed by U.S. Supreme Court\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\t

A narrow majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has ignored its sacred responsibility to uphold the law when it comes to federal treaties with Native sovereign nations.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/div>\n\t

\n\t\t\"Indianz.Com\"\t\tIndianz.Com\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\r\n

<\/P>\r\nThe court\u2019s ruling reverses, for the time being, the long-established federal Indian law principle which held that only tribal and federal courts had the authority to prosecute crimes committed against Indian people on Tribal lands.

<\/P>\r\nThe ruling of the court could not be more ominous, outrageous, and foreboding, especially in light of some of its specific wording. The decision, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, in some of its most chilling parts, states as follows:

<\/P>\r\n

    \r\n
  • \u201cTo begin with, the Constitution allows a state to exercise jurisdiction in Indian Country. Indian Country is part of the state, not separate from the state.\u201d<\/li>\r\n
  • The astonishing decision continues: \u201c\u2026as a matter of sovereignty, a state has jurisdiction over all of its territory, including Indian Country.\u201d<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nThis is incredible in light of enshrined, established, and settled federal Indian law and precedent. Worcester<\/em> said the complete opposite. Either Kavanaugh has never even read Worcester<\/em>, does not understand Worcester<\/em>, or totally rejects Worcester<\/em>. At the very least, it is abundantly clear that Kavanaugh has not even the slightest smidgen of understanding of federal Indian law. He is completely out of his field.

    <\/P>\r\nWith the absurd, preposterous, and states\u2019 rights wording of the ruling, it does not take a genius to see where this could lead in the foreseeable future.

    <\/P>

    <\/ins>