Book contents
- Reading American Indian Law
- Reading American Indian Law
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Editors and Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Core Concepts
- Part II Voices
- Part III Property
- Part IV (Mis)Understandings
- 13 Dependent Sovereigns: Indian Tribes, States, and the Federal Courts
- 14 There Is No Federal Supremacy Clause for Indian Tribes
- 15 American Indians, Crime, and the Law
- 16 Factbound and Splitless: The Certiorari Process As Barrier to Justice for Indian Tribes
- Book part
- References
13 - Dependent Sovereigns: Indian Tribes, States, and the Federal Courts
from Part IV - (Mis)Understandings
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2019
Book contents
- Reading American Indian Law
- Reading American Indian Law
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Editors and Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Core Concepts
- Part II Voices
- Part III Property
- Part IV (Mis)Understandings
- 13 Dependent Sovereigns: Indian Tribes, States, and the Federal Courts
- 14 There Is No Federal Supremacy Clause for Indian Tribes
- 15 American Indians, Crime, and the Law
- 16 Factbound and Splitless: The Certiorari Process As Barrier to Justice for Indian Tribes
- Book part
- References
Summary
Dependent Sovereigns: examines the tension between tribal and federal sovereigns each competing to be independent from the other. Unlike states, Indian tribes have never ceded their sovereignty but appear to have lost much of it anyway, slowly eroded by the decisions of the federal judiciary. Resnik utilizes a federal courts perspective to argue that there is space in American jurisprudence to accommodate tribes as part of the interdependence of sovereigns in the American system.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Reading American Indian LawFoundational Principles, pp. 311 - 333Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Further Reading
Berger, Bethany R., Indian Policy and the Imagined Indian Woman, 14 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 103 (2004).Google Scholar
Cahn, Naomi, Family Law, Federalism, and the Federal Courts, 79 Iowa L. Rev. 1073 (1994).Google Scholar
Fletcher, Matthew L. M., Resisting Federal Courts on Tribal Jurisdiction, 81 U. Colo. L. Rev. 973 (2010).Google Scholar
Fletcher, Matthew L. M., The Supreme Court’s Indian Problem, 59 Hastings L.J. 579 (2008).Google Scholar
Gover, Kevin & Laurence, Robert, Avoiding Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez: The Litigation in Federal Court of Civil Actions under the Indian Civil Rights Act, 8 Hamline L. Rev. 497 (1985).Google Scholar
Jones, B.J., Welcoming Tribal Courts into the Judicial Fraternity: Emerging Issues in Tribal–State and Tribal–Federal Court Relations, 24 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 457 (1998).Google Scholar
Koehn, Melissa L., Civil Jurisdiction: The Boundaries between Federal and Tribal Courts, 29 Ariz. St. L.J. 705 (1997).Google Scholar
Laurence, Robert, A Quincentennial Essay on Martinez v. Santa Clara Pueblo, 28 Idaho L. Rev. 307 (1992).Google Scholar
Levinson, Sanford, On Political Boundary Lines, Multiculturalism, and the Liberal State, 72 Ind. L.J. 403 (1997).Google Scholar
Lawson, Gary, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 Calif. L. Rev. 853 (1990).Google Scholar
Royster, Judith V., Stature and Scrutiny: Post-Exhaustion Review of Tribal Court Decisions, 46 Kan. L. Rev. 241 (1998).Google Scholar
Valencia-Weber, Gloria, Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez: Twenty-Five Years of Disparate Cultural Visions: An Essay Introducing the Case for Re-argument before the American Indian Nations Supreme Court, 14 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 49 (2004).Google Scholar