APPENDIX A
Cases Cited
The list includes some short forms used in the text and gives cross references to their full case names. Only those short forms that would not lead the reader easily to the full case name have been so referenced.
Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U.S. 591 (1916)
Bailey. See U.S. v. Bailey.
Barnette. See West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association v. Babbitt, 2:96-CV-63 (1996)
Beecherv. Wetherby, 95 U.S. 517 (1877)
Black v. Employment Division, 721 P.2d 451 (1986)
Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986)
Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408 (1989)
Buster v. Wright, 135 F. 947 (8th Cir.) (1905)
California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987)
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1939)
Cherokee Nation. See Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831)
Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 294 (1902)
Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Railway Company, 33 Fed. Rep. 900 (1888)
Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Railway Company, 135 U.S. 641 (1890)
Cherokee Tobacco, The, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 616 (1871)
Chinese Exclusion Cases, The, 130 U.S. 581 (1889)
Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665 (1912)
Choctaw Nation v. United States, 119 U.S. 1 (1886)
Civil Rights Cases, The, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation v. County of Yakima, 903 F.2d 1207 (1990)
Cotton Petroleum Corporation v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989)
County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 112 S. Ct. 683 (1992)
Crow Dog, Ex parte, 109 U.S. 556 (1883)
Crow Tribe of Indians and Thomas L. Ten Bear v. Repsis, 73 F.3d 982 (1995)
DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U.S. 425 (1975)
Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks, 430 U.S. 73 (1977)
Department of Taxation and Finance of New York v. Milhelm Attea and Brothers, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 2028 (1994)
Dick v. United States, 208 U.S. 340 (1908)
Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 (1912)
Draper v. United States, 165 U.S. 240 (1896)
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)
Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990)
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 485 U.S. 99 (1988)
Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment, Civ. No. C85-6139-E (D. Or.)
Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678 (1883)
Famous Smith v. United States, 151 U.S. 50 (1894)
Farrell v. United States, 110 Fed. 942 (1901)
Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch.) 87 (1810)
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824)
Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971)
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)
Goudy v. Meath, 203 U.S. 146 (1906)
Hagen v. Utah, 114 S. Ct. 958 (1994)
Hague v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 307 U.S. 496 (1939)
Hallowell v. United States, 221 U.S. 317 (1911)
Heff. See Matter of Heff.
Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida, 480 U.S. 136 (1987)
Holden v. Joy, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 211 (1872)
Hynes v. Grimes Packing Company, 337 U.S. 86 (1949)
International Society of Krisha Consciousness v. Lee, 112 S. Ct. 2701 (1992)
Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9 (1986)
Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823)
Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 388 F. Supp. 654 (1975)
Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370 (1975)
Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1 (1899)
Kagama. See U.S. v. Kagama.
Kansas. See The Kansas Indians.
Kansas Indians, The, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 737 (1866)
Kenyon, Ex parte, 14 F. Cas. 7720 (C.C. Ark., 1878)
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
La Motte v. United States, 254 U.S. 570 (1921)
Leavenworth Railroad Company v. United States, 92 U.S. 733 (1876)
Lone Wolf. See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903).
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 19 App. 315 (1902)
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903)
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988)
Mackey v. Coxe, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 100 (1856)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Mashunkashey v. Mashunkashey, 134 P.2d 976 (1942)
Matter of Heff, 197 U.S. 488 (1905)
Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973)
Mayfield, In re, 141 U.S. 107 (1891)
McBratney. See U.S. v. McBratney.
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164 (1973)
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
Meehan. See Jones v. Meehan.
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982)
Miller v. United States, 159 F.2d 997 (1947)
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Co. v. Roberts, 152 U.S. 114 (1894)
Mitchel v. United States, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 711 (1835)
Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian Reservation, 425 U.S. 463 (1976)
Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U.S. 759 (1985)
Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974)
Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council, 272 F.2d 131 (1959)
New Jersey v. Wilson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 164 (1812)
Nice. See U.S. v. Nice.
Nofire v. United States, 164 U.S. 657 (1897)
Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association v. Peterson, 795 F.2d 688 (1986)
Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 95 Ct. Cl. 642 (1942)
Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 100 Ct. Cl. 455 (1944)
Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U.S. 335 (1945)
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Chickasaw Nation, 115 S. Ct. 2214 (1995)
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac and Fox Nation, 113 S. Ct. 1985 (1993)
Oliphant. See Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe.
Oliphant v. Schlie, 544 F.2d 1007 (1976)
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978)
Otoe and Missouria Tribes of Indians v. United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 593 (1955)
Parks v. Ross, 60 U.S. (11 How.) 730 (1850)
Passamaquoddy. See Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370 (1975).
People v. Woody, 61 Cal.2d 716 (1964)
Perrin v. United States, 232 U.S. 478 (1914)
Peyote Way Church of God Inc. v. Thornburgh, 922 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir.) (1991)
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Quiver. See U.S. v. Quiver.
Race Horse. See Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1896).
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)
Rogers. See U.S. v. Rogers.
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584 (1977)
Ross. See Parks v. Ross.
Roy. See Bowen v. Roy.
Sah Quah, In re, 31 Fed. 327 (1886)
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978)
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 134 L. Ed. 252 (1996)
Seufert Brothers Company v. United States, 249 U.S. 194 (1919)
Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U.S. 351 (1962)
>
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
Shoshone. See Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. U.S. (1945).
Shoshone Indians v. United States, 85 Ct. Cl. 331 (1937)
Shoshone Tribe of Indians v. United States, 299 U.S. 476 (1937)
Sioux Nation. See U.S. v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980).
Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 229 (1956)
Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 64 F. Supp. 303 (1946)
Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 97 Ct. Cl. 613 (1942)
Sizemore v. Brady, 235 U.S. 441 (1914)
Slaughter House Cases, The, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873)
Smith. See Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith (1988).
Smith II. See Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith (1990).
Smith v. Employment Division, 721 P.2d 445 (1986)
Smith v. Employment Division, 763 P.2d 146 (1988)
Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984)
South Dakota v. Bourland, 113 S. Ct. 2309 (1993)
South Dakota v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 69 F.3d 878 (1995)
Southern Kansas Railway. See Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Railway (1890).
Spalding v. Chandler, 160 U.S. 394 (1896)
Standing Bear v. Crook, 25 F. Cas. 14,891 (1879)
Standley v. Roberts, 59 Fed. 836 (1894)
Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896)
Taylor v. Morton, 23 F. Cas. 784 (C.C.D. Mass., 1855)
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 273 (1955)
Thomas v. Review Board, Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981)
Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. United States, 390 F.2d 686 (Ct. Cl., 1968)
Three Tribes. See Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. United States.
Tiger v. Western Investment Company, 221 U.S. 286 (1911)
Tillamooks. See U.S. v. Tillamooks.
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)
United States ex. rel. Hualpai Indians v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad, 314 U.S. 339 (1941)
United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48 (1951)
United States v. Bailey, F. Cas. 14,495 (C.C. Tenn.) (1834)
United States v. Berry, 2 McCrary 58 (1880)
United States v. Board of Commissioners, 145 F.2d 329 (1944)
United States v. Boyll, 724 F. Supp. 1333 (1991)
United States v. Celestine, 215 U.S. 278 (1909)
United States v. Choctaw Nation, 179 U.S. 494 (1900)
United States v. Clapox, 35 Fed. 575 (D.C. Ore. 1888)
United States v. Cook, 86 (19 Wall.) 591 (1874)
United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 616 (1876)
United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886)
United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982)
United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1881)
United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975)
United States v. Mille Lac Band of Chippewas, 229 U.S. 498 (1913)
United States v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916)
United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442 (1914)
United States v. Quiver, 241 U.S. 602 (1916)
United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432 (1903)
United States v. Rogers, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 567 (1846)
United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913)
United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U.S. 111 (1938)
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 518 F.2d 1298 (1975)
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)
United States v. Sutton, 215 U.S. 291 (1909)
United States v. Thomas, 151 U.S. 577 (1894)
United States v. Tillamooks, 329 U.S. 40 (1946)
United States v. Ward, 28 F. Cas. 397 (1863)
United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 343 (1974)
United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978)
United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905)
Ward. See U.S. v. Ward.
Ward v. Race Horse, 70 Fed. 598 (1895)
Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1896)
Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 380 U.S. 685 (1965)
Wau-Pe-Man-Qua v. Aldrich, 28 Fed. 489 (1886)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Wheeler. See U.S. v. Wheeler.
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980)
Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959)
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)
Yakima. See Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation v. County of Yakima.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 220 (1886)
Yoder. See Wisconsin v. Yoder.
APPENDIX B
Supreme Court Justices Authoring the Fifteen Opinions Analyzed
SOURCES: Leon Friedman and Fred L. Israel (eds.), The Justices of the United States Supreme Court, 1789–1969: Their Lives and Major Opinions (New York: R. R. Bowker Company, 1969, 1978 supplement); Elder Witt, Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 2d ed. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1990): 860–880; Lawrence Baum, The Supreme Court, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1992): 56; Henry J. Abraham, Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointrnents to the Supreme Court, 3d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992): Appendix D.
Notes
PREFACE
1. As quoted in Commissioner of Indian Affairs Luke Lea’s Annual Report (1851), 274.
2. The Kansas Indians, 72 U.S. 737 (5 Wall.) 737 (1866), 758.
3. As quoted in William W. Story, ed., Life and Letters of Joseph Story (Boston: Little & Brown, 1851), 624.
4. Thurman W. Arnold, The Folklore of Capitalism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937), 63.
5. Ibid., 62.
6. Thurman W. Arnold, The Symbols of Government (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935), 35.
7. See, for example, Ken Peak and Jack Spencer, “Crime in Indian Country: Another Trail of Tears,” Journal of Criminal Justice 15 (1987): 485–494; Donald E. Green, “American Indian Criminality: What Do We Really Know,” in Donald E. Green and Thomas V. Tonnesen, eds., American Indians: Social Justice and Public Policy (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991): 223–270; and Laurence French, ed., Indians and Criminal Justice (Totowa, N.J.: Allanheld, Osmun & Co., 1982).
CHAPTER 1
1. See especially “Indian Law and the Reach of History,” Journal of Contemporary Law 4 (1977–78): 1–13; “Revision and Reversion” in Calvin Martin, ed., The American Indian and the Problem of History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 84–90; and “Laws Founded injustice and Humanity: Reflections on the Content and Character of Federal Indian Law,” Arizona Law Review 31 (1989): 203–223.
2. Deloria, “Reach of History,” 1.
3. Ibid.
4. Thurman W. Arnold, The Symbols of Government (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935), 36.
5. Ibid., 31.
6. Ibid., 32.
7. Ibid., 33.
8. See especially Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1942; reprint ed., Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1972); Charles F. Wilkinson, American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987); and Julie Wrend and Clay Smith, eds., American Indian Law Deskbook (Niwot, Colo.: University Press of Colorado, 1993).
9. David Kairys, With Liberty and Justice for Some: A Critique of the Conservative Supreme Court (New York: The New Press, 1993), 195.
10. Tribes, I argue, have an extraconstitutional status because of their preexisting, original sovereignty; because they were existing sovereigns, they were not parties to the U.S. Constitu
tion or state constitutions. As the Supreme Court said in Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896), tribal rights of self-government were not delegated by Congress and were thus not powers arising from or created by the federal Constitution. The U.S. Bill of Rights, therefore, does not apply to the acts of tribal governments. An important act was passed in 1968, however, the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (82 St. 77), which for the first time imposed a substantial body of U.S. constitutional law onto tribal courts. This was a major intrusion on tribal sovereignty, although the Indian Civil Rights Act has several important exceptions that differentiate it from the U.S. Bill of Rights. See Vine Deloria Jr. and Clifford M. Lytle’s American Indians, American Justice (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1983), 126–130, which compares and contrasts the two sets of rights.
Furthermore, the persistence of Indian treaty rights and the fact that Congress and the tribes have never cooperated in any action that would lead to a constitutional amendment incorporating tribes into the American political system give additional proof of the ongoing extraconstitutional status of tribal nations.
11. Arnold, The Symbols of Government, 195.
12. The field of Critical Legal Studies was officially born in 1977 at a conference at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Its membership is quite eclectic and represents a diverse array of scholars and professionals including disgruntled liberals and radical feminists. The main target of Critical Legal Theorists (CRITS) has been to challenge the alleged contrast between politics and the law. They argue that the two are interconnected. For a good overview of the field see the following anthologies: Allen C. Hutchinson, ed., Critical Legal Studies (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1989) and David Kairys, ed., The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982).
13. John T. Noonan Jr., Persons and Masks of the Law (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1976).
14. See especially Kairys, ed., The Politics of Law, for a good cross-section of essays that lay out the premises of this theoretical approach to the law.
15. Duncan Kennedy, “Toward an Historical Understanding of Legal Consciousness: The Case of Classical Legal Thought in America, 1850–1940,” in Stephen Spitzer, ed., Research in Law and Sociology (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1980), 4.
16. Ibid., 23.
17. Ibid., 6.
18. Robert W. Gordon, “Legal Thought and Legal Practice in the Age of American Enterprise: 1870–1920,” in Gerald L. Geison, ed., Professions and Professional Ideologies in America (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina, 1983), 72.
American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court Page 43