American Indian law
American Indian law encompasses the legal principles and frameworks governing the relationship between American Indian tribes, the federal government, and the states within the United States. This area of law has been significantly shaped by landmark Supreme Court decisions, particularly those from the early 19th century known as the Marshall Trilogy, which established that tribal governments are primarily subject to federal authority, with limited state power. The federal government has a unique obligation towards American Indian tribes, reflecting a special trust relationship that influences various aspects of governance and regulation.
Over time, subsequent rulings have further defined these parameters, including Congress's authority to regulate tribal affairs, particularly in areas relating to health and safety, as seen in significant liquor case rulings. Recent decisions have continued to clarify the balance of power, such as the 2020 McGirt v. Oklahoma case, which reinforced federal jurisdiction over tribal lands, and the 2022 Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta case, which expanded state prosecutorial powers against non-Indians committing crimes on tribal land. The 2023 ruling in Haaland v. Brackeen also highlighted the protection of Native American rights through the Indian Child Welfare Act, emphasizing the complex interplay between federal mandates and state regulations. Despite these developments, many legal questions remain, indicating that American Indian law is a dynamic and evolving field still grappling with issues of sovereignty and jurisdiction.
On this Page
American Indian law
Description: Body of law, also known as federal Indian law, that deals with the US government’s interpretations of the Constitution, executive orders, statutory law, and treaties as they affect American Indians and their rights.
Significance: The Supreme Court defined the central tenets of American Indian law in the early nineteenth century through three cases known as the Marshall Trilogy.
The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall took a leading role in defining the fundamental principles of federal Indian law through its decisions in Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. McIntosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1932). Known as the Marshall Trilogy, these seminal decisions established the important precedent that tribal governments are subject to federal control and states have limited regulatory powers. These cases also established the relationship between American Indians and the federal government. The federal government has virtually unfettered authority over American Indians, but it has a special relationship with them and perhaps an obligation to act in their best interests.
Subsequent case law reasserted and clarified the key principles set forth by the Marshall Trilogy. Congressional authority over tribal affairs was expanded through two liquor cases, United States v. Holliday (1865) and United States v. Forty-three Gallons of Whiskey (1876). In both cases, the Supreme Court gave Congress jurisdiction to regulate the sale and consumption of alcohol by American Indians because of the commerce clause and because Congress has the power to regulate the health, safety, morality, and welfare of the citizenry. The states’ power to regulate the tribes remained limited, however. In The New York Indians v. United States (1898), for example, the Supreme Court held that American Indians were exempt from state taxation. McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) upheld the principle that American Indians are subject to federal rather than state jurisdiction, even in areas of historical tribal control rather than clearly established reservations. However, with Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022) the Court notably expanded state power, holding that states can prosecute non–American Indians concurrently with the federal government for crimes against American Indians (as well as fellow non–American Indians) on American Indian land. In Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) the Supreme Court upheld the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which gave preference to placing adoptable American Indian children with American Indian families, after a federal judge declared the Act unconstitutional. Considered a major win for Native American rights, the ruling indicated that federal mandates are prohibited from being imposed on areas of power that are traditionally state-regulated, such as those concerning family law.
Although the Supreme Court created a basic doctrine to define the interests of American Indians in the US political system, there are many areas within Native American Indian law that are still unresolved. In White Mountain Apache v. Bracker (1980), Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall, speaking on behalf of the Court, acknowledged that federal Indian law “is not dependent upon mechanical or absolute conceptions of state or tribal sovereignty, but has called for a particularized inquiry into the nature of the state, federal, and tribal interests at stake.”
Bibliography
"American Indian Law." Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/american‗indian‗law. Accessed 21 Sept. 2022.
"American Indian Law: A Beginner's Guide." Library of Congress, guides.loc.gov/american-indian-law#s-lib-ctab-27950409-1. Accessed 21 Sept. 2022.
"American Indian Law & Culture." Thomas J. Meskill Law Library Research Guides, UConn School of Law, libguides.law.uconn.edu/AmericanIndian. Accessed 21 Sept. 2022.
Clinton, Robert, et al. American Indian Law. 3d ed. Charlottesville, Va.: Michie, 1981.
Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Clifford M. Lytle. American Indians, American Justice. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1983.
Strickland, Rennard, et al. Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Charlottesville, Va.: Michie, 1982.
Totenberg, Nina and Meghanlata Gupta. NPR, 15 June 2023, www.npr.org/2023/06/15/1182121455/indian-child-welfare-act-supreme-court-decision. Accessed 2 Aug. 2023.
Wilkinson, Charles F. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1987.