Tribal Tort Law

For decades, there has been tension between Native American fishermen and non-native fishermen over the fishing rights on Mille Lacs Lake. This tension has increased, particularly because of the sustainability and quality of Mille Lacs Lake, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Minnesota against Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians. The Court claimed that the Chippewa Indians retained their rights to hunt and fish on ceded lands as established by the 1837 Treaty of St. Peters. Usufruct rights are rights of enjoyment to another’s property allowing the holder to generate income from the property without obtaining ownership. This right to hunt and fish on ceded lands is further protected from state regulation by the 1837 Treaty of St. Peters.

The Court also rejected Florida's argument that Congress had required the state's consent before the tribe could engage in Class III gaming activities. As a result of the ruling, the Seminole Tribe was able to continue offering Class III gaming activities on their reservation without interference from the state, although they were still required to negotiate a compact with the state to regulate and tax their gaming

The government eventually passed the native title in which stated that the laws and regulation for the courts follows in future claims. This had all happened in 1993. Many non- indigenous people did not understand why Mabo had put so much effort into all this when it was just land. They did not realize the issue that Mabo was stating, butF why would the non-indigenous people see a problem.

The Tunica tribe could reclaim their land in 1844 because Celestin Moreau charged five old women from the tribe with trespassing. The Moreau vs. Valentin case brought the end of the court costs to Moreau and the Tunica was allowed an equal hearing. Because there was

This story of the Seminoles’ struggles for identity and sovereignty is a microcosm of the true horrors inflicted on Indian nations by the federal government. The Seminoles remarkably defied federal, state, and local government pressures of removal in the early nineteenth century. They also disputed Creek insistence on tribal consolidation, and other Indian nation claims to their property. Among the federal tactics were the illegal removals, and treaties that meant little to the federal government when land, as part of Manifest Destiny, and wealth the federal government sought entered the equation. The Seminoles also endured the paternalism, coercion tactics, and pressures from Bureau of Indian Affairs agents who made promises to them that were frequently broken.

In short, Public Law 280 gave states the opportunity to take control of jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases that involve Indians and that have occurred within the boundaries of Indian Country. This chapter goes over the specifics that work under the general idea of this law as well as the history that influenced change to this law. Basically, Public Law 280 gave six states the power to exercise criminal and civil jurisdiction over tribes that were within their boundaries. There were two problems with this; the states brought up that they did not get extra funding that would help exercise their jurisdiction and the tribes were upset that this law allowed state jurisdiction over them without any of their consent. To solve these two complaints,

The document “Thomas Jefferson and the American Indian Nations: Native American Sovereignty and the Marshall Court” is a historical journal article written in 2006. It was published in the thirty first volume of the Journal of Supreme Court History, a popular historical journal focusing on the history and actions of the Supreme Court. It was written by Stephen G. Bragaw, Ph.D., a Visiting Professor of Politics at Washington and Lee University. He has published numerous articles and papers, and has extensive experience in American History and Politics. The Journal of Supreme Court History is a historical journal that is very popular among historians, those interested in the history of the Supreme Court, and most likely also modern politicians

The Act led to an array of legal and moral arguments for and against the need to relocate the Indians westward from the agriculturally productive lands of the Mississippi in Georgia and parts of Alabama. This paper compares and contrasts the major arguments for and against the

Hugh Henry Brackenridge did not care much for the Indians. In his article, he referred to them as “animals, vulgarly called Indians” (Brackenridge, 185). Indians claimed their land by “occupancy” (Brackenridge, 185). One Indian would set foot on a piece of land so he believed that that area of land belonged to him. When another Indian set foot on that same piece of land, the first Indian asked him to leave because he had already claimed that land.

Which means that even though the mass majority of the reported rapes against Native women are committed by white males, they rarely receive punishment since they don’t reside on the Indian reservations. Thus, giving the ‘okay’ to non-native men that they can specifically target Native people, mainly women, on their land because they can get away scot-free from the federal law. Plus, if a case was to be brought up to a federal level, there is little to no representation found to support Native American women and their cases. Due to this, many Native women have little to no protection from sexual violence, while their assailants will more than likely be left unpunished by the

3.4.17 What does the constitution say about birthright citizenship: Professor Edward edlard cal state – he testified before subcommittee 20 years ago, the framers of the constitution, the civil war amendments 13,14,15. Section 5 of the 4th amendment congress can to define the jurisdiction of the united states. Congress has exercised this same authority to define the jurisdiction of the US before in 1986 and later with the immigration reform act and with the illegal immigration reform of 1996. Senator Jacob Howard wrote the 14th amendment citizenship clause he defined who would fall under the citizenship clause jurisdiction when he wrote: “Every person born within the limits of the united states and subject to their jurisdiction is by virtual

Many tribes had cultural ties to the environment itself. When the Americans established the Indian Removal Act, the Native Americans were forced to leave these cultural grounds. Those who refused to leave their original homeland had to conform to the ways of colonial life instead

In Chapter 4 of Uneven Ground, Wilkins discusses the United States v. Winans case which regarded tribal rights. It held that the Yakamas tribe had “reserved rights” to hunt and fish because the Winans brothers had been depleting the salmon in the river. Wilkins also writes how the tribes implemented their rights based on their original and indigenous sovereignty. Chief Justice Fuller recognized this and confirmed the tribe’s rights to hunt and fish because of tribal sovereignty (125). In a similar case, Winters v. United States (1908), a man had built a dam that restricted all water flow down the Milk River.

An ethical issue related to medical care is pain management and the inappropriate judgment of patients being labeled as “Drug Seeking”. There are statistics that prove there is a rise in abuse in opiates within communities. However, at what point does the nurse or provider get to decide what is an adequate pain threshold and how much they should endure? When does the ethical duty to relieve pain and suffering subside to personal biases?

This breaks a part communication between tribes and makes them unstable. It’s a completely underhanded move that tore many lives a part. The law was created to provide further rule over Indian Territory, which they already have gained a lot in recent time. The Indians are being transformed by law, not by will.