American Indian Law

Question 1

Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823) (21 U.S. 240) (1: Land) (Era 1: Treaty Making)

Answer 1

Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823) (21 U.S. 240) (1: Land)  discovery of lands gave European sovereign title good against all other Europeans – Indians retain right of occupancy which only discovering sovereign could extinguish “by purchase or by conquest” - sovereign could grant lands but grantee received title subject to right of occupancy – right of occupancy called “Indian title”

Question 2

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) (30 U.S. 1) (3: Removal) (Era 2: Removal)

Answer 2

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) (30 U.S. 1) (3: Removal) (Era 2: Removal)  Cherokee tribe is “state” but not “foreign” state for purposes of original jurisdiction in SCOTUS – domestic dependent nation – A// tribe: U.S.; ward: guardian

Question 3

Worcester v. Georgia (1832) (31 U.S. 515) (3: Removal) (Era 2: Removal)

Answer 3

Worcester v. Georgia (1832) (31 U.S. 515) (3: Removal) (Era 2: Removal)  Georgia lacked the right to impose a licensing system on non-Indians who resided in Cherokee territory – history, treaties, and Trade and Intercourse Acts are distinct political communities with territorial boundaries within which laws of Georgia have no force

Question 4

United States v. McBratney (1881) (14: Criminal Jurisdiction I) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation)

Answer 4

United States v. McBratney (1881) (14: Criminal Jurisdiction I) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation)  the United States circuit court for the district of Colorado had no jurisdiction over the murder of one white man by another in the Ute reservation

Question 5

Ex parte Crow Dog (1883) (14: Criminal Jurisdiction I) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation)

Answer 5

Ex parte Crow Dog (1883) (14: Criminal Jurisdiction I) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation)  federal courts do not have jurisdiction over crimes committed by one American Indian of the same tribe against another American Indian in Indian territory – overturned by Major Crimes Act

Question 6

United States v. Kagama (1886) (14: Criminal Jurisdiction I) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation)

Answer 6

United States v. Kagama (1886) (14: Criminal Jurisdiction I) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation)  held MCA constitutional - general constitutional provisions empower Cong

Question 7

Talton v. Mayes (1896) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation)

Answer 7

Talton v. Mayes (1896) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation)  The powers of self-government held by an Indian nation are not subject to the requirements of the United States Constitution.

Question 8

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903) (4: Allotment) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation

Answer 8

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903) (4: Allotment) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation)  upheld statute distributing tribal lands despite claim by some tribal members that treaty required consent of tribal members for that – dependency of tribes on U.S. – Congress has power to reduce reservation boundaries to zero

Question 9

United States v. Winans (1905) (21: Hunting & Fishing) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation)

Answer 9

United States v. Winans (1905) (21: Hunting & Fishing) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation)  Federal treaties can protect the right of American Indians to fish in the waters surrounding their reservation, even where there are conflicting state laws.

Question 10

Winters v. US (1908) (20: Water) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation)

Answer 10

Winters v. US (1908) (20: Water) (Era 3: Allotment and Assimilation)  If water is necessary to the full use of reservation lands, Indians will be presumed to have rights over that water. In cases where there are conflicting water-rights claims and ambiguities as to the water rights that Indians received, those ambiguities must be resolved in favor of Indians.

Question 11

United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians (1938) (5: Reorganization) (Era 4: Reorganization)

Answer 11

United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians (1938) (5: Reorganization) (Era 4: Reorganization)  United States did not have power to give to others or to appropriate to its own use any part of the land, including mineral and water rights, without rendering, or assuming the obligation to pay just compensation to the tribe.

Question 12

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (1955) (348 U.S. 272) (6: Termination) (Era 5: Termination)

Answer 12

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (1955) (348 U.S. 272) (6: Termination) (Era 5: Termination)  Alaska Indians’ title same nature as aboriginal title or right of occupancy once held by Indians to south – good against third parties, subject to extinguishment by federal government w/o compensation

Question 13

Williams v. Lee (1959) (12: Civil Jurisdiction I) (Era 5: Termination)

Answer 13

Williams v. Lee (1959) (12: Civil Jurisdiction I) (Era 5: Termination)  states lack power to regulate Native American affairs on a reservation.

Question 14

Arizona v. California (1963) (20: Water) (Era 6)

Answer 14

Arizona v. California (1963) (20: Water) (Era 6)  Indians on Indian reservations have present, perfected water rights entitled to priority, and those rights entitle the Indians to all the water necessary for their irrigable land.

Question 15

Menominee Tribe v. United States (1968) (2: Treaties) (6: Termination) (Era 6)

Answer 15

Menominee Tribe v. United States (1968) (2: Treaties) (6: Termination) (Era 6)  if tribes maintain existence, termination won’t end treaty rights w/o clear expression of legislative intent to accomplish that purpose – EG of cong going to extreme length to avoid destruction of treaty rights

Question 16

Daly v. United States (8th Cir. 1973) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 6)

Answer 16

Daly v. United States (8th Cir. 1973) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 6)  Under the Indian Civil Rights Act, the one-person-one-vote requirement mandated a rewriting of a tribal council apportionment involving a blood-quantum requirement.

Question 17

McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission (1973) (16: Taxes and Regulation I) (Era 6)

Answer 17

McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission (1973) (16: Taxes and Regulation I) (Era 6)  A state does not have jurisdiction to collect personal income taxes from Indians who live and work on reservations.

Question 18

Crowe v. Eastern Band of Cherokee (4th Cir. 1974) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 6)

Answer 18

Crowe v. Eastern Band of Cherokee (4th Cir. 1974) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 6)  Tribal courts must accord due process but The IRCA incorporation of DPC req’s, absent a clear abrogation of tribal sovereignty, does not render tribal courts illegal.

Question 19

Morton v. Mancari (1974) (24: What is an “Indian”?) (Era 6)

Answer 19

Morton v. Mancari (1974) (24: What is an “Indian”?) (Era 6)  The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 did not implicitly repeal the Indian hiring preference of the Indian Reorganization Act

Question 20

Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton (1st Cir. 1975) (8: Self Determination) (Era 6)

Answer 20

Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton (1st Cir. 1975) (8: Self Determination) (Era 6)  tribal recognition can come from many directions, and sufficiency of any recognition likely to depend on purpose for which tribal status asserted + Ct may order exec branch of federal gov to honor tribal status for particular purpose when deemed to be intent of Cong

Question 21

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. US (1976) (20: Water) (Era 6)

Answer 21

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. US (1976) (20: Water) (Era 6)  Even if a federal court has jurisdiction and abstention is not proper, a federal court may defer to pending state proceedings if it is judicially wise to do so. The McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666, directing that the United States Government could be a party to a lawsuit regarding water rights under state law on its own behalf and that of certain Indian tribes, consents to state jurisdiction.

Question 22

Bryan v. Itasca County (1976) (16: Taxes and Regulation I) (Era 6)

Answer 22

Bryan v. Itasca County (1976) (16: Taxes and Regulation I) (Era 6)  Federal Public Law 280 does not grant states the power to tax property located on Indian reservations.

Question 23

United States v. Antelope (1977) (24: What is an “Indian”?) (Era 6)

Answer 23

United States v. Antelope (1977) (24: What is an “Indian”?) (Era 6)  The Major Crimes Act does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by subjecting only Indians to its jurisdiction.

Question 24

Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 6)

Answer 24

Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 6)  Title I of the Indian Civil Rights Act did not create a cause of action in federal court for injunctive or declaratory relief (only habeas corpus) because such a remedy would modify the sovereignty extended to the tribes – remedy for EPA vx in tribal ct

Question 25

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) (14: Criminal Jurisdiction I) (Era 6)

Answer 25

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) (14: Criminal Jurisdiction I) (Era 6)  Tribal courts do not have inherent sovereign authority over non-Indians who commit crimes on the reservation.

Question 26

United States v. Wheeler (1978) (15: Criminal Jurisdiction II) (Era 6)

Answer 26

United States v. Wheeler (1978) (15: Criminal Jurisdiction II) (Era 6)  The power of Indian nations to enforce tribal laws derives from the nation’s inherent sovereignty and not from the federal government. The federal government is not precluded under the Double Jeopardy Clause from pursuing federal criminal charges against defendants convicted in tribal court under the dual sovereignty doctrine.

Question 27

Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (1980) (16: Taxes and Regulation I) (Era 6)

Answer 27

Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (1980) (16: Taxes and Regulation I) (Era 6)  A state can enforce a sales tax on non-Indians who purchase goods on Indian reservations.

Question 28

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980) (9: Fiduciary Duties) (Era 6)  The Sioux were entitled to compensation under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment for the USFG’s 1877 taking of the Black Hills.

Answer 28

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980) (9: Fiduciary Duties) (Era 6)

Question 29

Montana v. United States (1981) (12: Civil Jurisdiction I) (21: Hunting & Fishing) (Era 6)

Answer 29

Montana v. United States (1981) (12: Civil Jurisdiction I) (21: Hunting & Fishing) (Era 6)  The Crow’s treaties do not enable it to regulate hunting/fishing on lands not owned by the tribe or its members - overturns presumption that Indian sovereignty exists unless it can’t – flips presumption to “you get sovereignty” you say you get

Question 30

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe (1982) (16: Taxes and Regulation I) (Era 6)

Answer 30

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe (1982) (16: Taxes and Regulation I) (Era 6)  Indian authority to tax non-Indians doing business on Indian land is an essential part of Indian Tribes’ sovereignty.

Question 31

United States v. Adair (9th Cir. 1983) (20: Water) (Era 6)

Answer 31

United States v. Adair (9th Cir. 1983) (20: Water) (Era 6)  A treaty creating an Indian reservation can reserve water rights for hunting and fishing purposes, with a priority date of immemorial use.

Question 32

New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe (1983) (21: Hunting & Fishing) (Era 6)

Answer 32

New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe (1983) (21: Hunting & Fishing) (Era 6)  Absent sufficient interest, a state may not exercise concurrent jurisdiction over non-Indians who participate in recreational activities on the reservation.

Question 33

Solem v. Bartlett (1984) (7: Disestablishment) (465 U.S. 463)

Answer 33

Solem v. Bartlett (1984) (7: Disestablishment) (465 U.S. 463)  explicit intent required to disestablish Indian Reservation

Question 34

Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe (1985) (17: Taxes and Regulation II) (Era 6)

Answer 34

Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe (1985) (17: Taxes and Regulation II) (Era 6)  The Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 does not permit states to tax royalty payments received by tribes from mineral leases.

Question 35

County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation (1985) (8: Self Determination) (Era 6)

Answer 35

County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation (1985) (8: Self Determination) (Era 6)  “non-possessory” claims for damages appended to disruptive possessory claims barred by Sherrill

Question 36

National Farmers Union Ins. Co. v. Crow Tribe (1985) (12: Civil Jurisdiction I) (Era 6)

Answer 36

National Farmers Union Ins. Co. v. Crow Tribe (1985) (12: Civil Jurisdiction I) (Era 6)  Parties must exhaust tribal-court remedies before invoking federal-question jurisdiction.

Question 37

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (1987) (23: Gaming) (Era 6)

Answer 37

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (1987) (23: Gaming) (Era 6)  A state cannot enforce civil regulatory laws on an Indian reservation under federal Public Law 280.

Question 38

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988) (19: Religion & Culture) (Era 6)

Answer 38

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988) (19: Religion & Culture) (Era 6)  ET the decision of whether to pave roads on federally owned land or harvest timber from a forest interferes with the plaintiffs’ religious practices, it does not compel the plaintiffs to violate their religious beliefs or punish them for their religious activity – TF no vx of Free Exercise Clause

Question 39

Cotton Petroleum v. New Mexico (1989) (17: Taxes and Regulation II) (Era 6)

Answer 39

Cotton Petroleum v. New Mexico (1989) (17: Taxes and Regulation II) (Era 6)  A state can tax oil and gas activity on an Indian reservation if the state has a financial interest in that activity and the tax does not substantially burden a tribe.

Question 40

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield (1989) (18: ICWA) (Era 6)

Answer 40

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield (1989) (18: ICWA) (Era 6)  Pursuant to the ICWA, a tribal court has exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings concerning an Indian child who resides or is domiciled within the reservation of the tribe.

Question 41

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990) (19: Religion & Culture) (Era 6)

Answer 41

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990) (19: Religion & Culture) (Era 6)  the free exercise clause doesn’t make peyote ok

Question 42

Duro v. Reina (1990) (15: Criminal Jurisdiction II) (Era 6)

Answer 42

Duro v. Reina (1990) (15: Criminal Jurisdiction II) (Era 6)  Tribal courts have the authority to adjudicate internal criminal disputes, but do not have criminal jurisdiction over the actions of nonmember Indians.

Question 43

County of Yakima v. Yakima Indian Nation (1992) (4: Allotment) (Era 6)

Answer 43

County of Yakima v. Yakima Indian Nation (1992) (4: Allotment) (Era 6)  fee land allotted by Dawes Act is taxable by states – no excise tax because would be applicable to all land, not just alienable fee land

Question 44

Strate v. A-1 Contractors (1997) (13: Civil Jurisdiction II) (Era 6)

Answer 44

Strate v. A-1 Contractors (1997) (13: Civil Jurisdiction II) (Era 6) In both civil and criminal cases, unless Congress has explicitly granted jurisdiction, tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over nonmembers on non-member land. Uses 2 factor Montana test

Question 45

Miller v. Pequot (Tribal Court 1998) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 6)

Answer 45

Miller v. Pequot (Tribal Court 1998) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 6)  tribal council lacks SMJ w/w4 admin record and final DM of prez/CEO

Question 46

Miller v. Pequot (Tribal Court 1998) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 6)

Answer 46

Miller v. Pequot (Tribal Court 1998) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 6)  tribal council lacks SMJ w/w4 admin record and final DM of prez/CEO

Question 47

Alaska v. Alaska Native Village of Venetie (1998) (22: Alaska) (Era 6)

Answer 47

Alaska v. Alaska Native Village of Venetie (1998) (22: Alaska) (Era 6)  To be classified as Indian country under the ICA, lands must be set aside for the Indians by the federal government and under federal supervision.

Question 48

Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) (11: Sovereign Immunity) (Era 6)

Answer 48

Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) (11: Sovereign Immunity) (Era 6)  Tribes have immunity from suits on contracts, whether those contracts involved governmental or commercial activities and whether they were made on or off a reservation because Congress did not abrogate this immunity, and the tribe did not waive its immunity

Question 49

Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians (1999) (21: Hunting & Fishing) (Era 6)

Answer 49

Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians (1999) (21: Hunting & Fishing) (Era 6)  Unless Congress explicitly acts to revoke usufructary rights through a treaty or other legislation, those rights cannot be terminated.

Question 50

Rice v. Cayetano (2000) (24: What is an “Indian”?) (Era 6)

Answer 50

Rice v. Cayetano (2000) (24: What is an “Indian”?) (Era 6)  A state-sanctioned voting scheme that limits the right to vote to individuals of a certain ancestry violates the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which forbids restrictions on the right to vote based on race.

Question 51

Cobell v. Norton (DC Cir. 2001) (9: Fiduciary Duties) (Era 6)

Answer 51

Cobell v. Norton (DC Cir. 2001) (9: Fiduciary Duties) (Era 6)  Federal government decisions regarding the management of Indian trust assets are not entitled to Chevron deference.

Question 52

Chickasaw Nation v. US (2001) (23: Gaming) (Era 6)

Answer 52

Chickasaw Nation v. US (2001) (23: Gaming) (Era 6)  The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act does not exempt tribes from paying the gambling-related taxes that chapter 35 imposes.

Question 53

Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley (2001) (17: Taxes and Regulation II) (Era 6)

Answer 53

Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley (2001) (17: Taxes and Regulation II) (Era 6)  Indian tribes can tax nonmembers on non-Indian land if, and only if one of the Montana exceptions applies.

Question 54

Wagnon v. Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation (2005) (17: Taxes and Regulation II) (Era 6)

Answer 54

Wagnon v. Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation (2005) (17: Taxes and Regulation II) (Era 6)  Where taxation takes place off-reservation and was neither discriminatory nor an affront to tribal sovereignty, it is valid.

Question 55

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation (2005) (1: Land) (8: Self-Determination)

Answer 55

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation (2005) (1: Land) (8: Self-Determination)  rejects claim where tribe sought to est. sovereignty and freedom from taxation for parcels of land within OG reservation that passed out of Indian ownership 200 years later – no checkerboards of jurisdiction + don’t want to defeat settled expectations of local govs and adjacent landowners

Question 56

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family (2008) (13: Civil Jurisdiction II) (Era 6)

Answer 56

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family (2008) (13: Civil Jurisdiction II) (Era 6)  tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning non- Indian banks' sales of their own lands

Question 57

United States v. Stymiest (8th Cir. 2009) (24: What is an “Indian”?) (Era 6)

Answer 57

United States v. Stymiest (8th Cir. 2009) (24: What is an “Indian”?) (Era 6)  Tribal membership is a dispositive factor in determining who is an Indian for criminal jurisdiction

Question 58

Carcieri v. Salazar (2009) (5: Reorganization) (Era 6)

Answer 58

Carcieri v. Salazar (2009) (5: Reorganization) (Era 6)  For the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and hold land on behalf of Indian tribes pursuant to § 479 of the IRA, the tribe must have been under federal jurisdiction at the time the act was passed in 1934.

Question 59

United States v. Navajo Nation (2009) (9: Fiduciary Duties) (Era 6)

Answer 59

United States v. Navajo Nation (2009) (9: Fiduciary Duties) (Era 6)  IMLA did not give the Federal Government full responsibility to manage Indian resources for the benefit of the Indians, it simply required approval before coal mining leases become effective, which does not create a fiduciary relationship. In the spirit of self-government, you need to be responsible.

Question 60

Geronimo v. Obama (DCDC 2010) (19: Religion & Culture) (Era 6)

Answer 60

Geronimo v. Obama (DCDC 2010) (19: Religion & Culture) (Era 6)  Constructs NDGPRA to not include automatic waiver of subject matter jurisdiction and dismisses for lack of jurisdiction without an explicit waiver of jurisdiction.

Question 61

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo (2012) (8: Self Determination) (Era 6)

Answer 61

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo (2012) (8: Self Determination) (Era 6)  The government's contractual obligation under the ISDA should be treated like any other contract. The government must fulfill its total financial obligation.

Question 62

Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw (5th Cir. 2013) (13: Civil Jurisdiction II) (Era 6)

Answer 62

Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw (5th Cir. 2013) (13: Civil Jurisdiction II) (Era 6)  A tribe may regulate the activities of nonmembers on Indian fee lands who enter a consensual relation with the tribe through commercial dealing.

Question 63

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (2013) (18: ICWA) (Era 6)

Answer 63

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (2013) (18: ICWA) (Era 6)  The Indian Child Welfare Act does not protect the rights of a parent who has never had custody of the child.

Question 64

Michigan v. Bay Hills Indian Community (2014) (11: Sovereign Immunity) (Era 6)

Answer 64

Michigan v. Bay Hills Indian Community (2014) (11: Sovereign Immunity) (Era 6)  An Indian tribe is immune from suit by a state for commercial activities conducted by the tribe on non-Indian land.

Question 65

Nebraska v. Parker (2016) (577 U.S. 481)  (7: Disestablishment)

Answer 65

Nebraska v. Parker (2016) (577 U.S. 481)  (7: Disestablishment)  left open Q of whether tribe’s long absence from reservation land might preclude power to tax retailers there by holding that long absence was not sufficient under Solem v. Bartlett test

Question 66

Sturgeon v. Frost (2016) (22: Alaska) (Era 6)

Answer 66

Sturgeon v. Frost (2016) (22: Alaska) (Era 6)  Nonpublic lands within Alaska national parks are exempt from the regulatory authority of the National Park Service.

Question 67

Lewis v. Clarke (2017) (11: Sovereign Immunity) (Era 6)

Answer 67

Lewis v. Clarke (2017) (11: Sovereign Immunity) (Era 6)  tribal sovereign immunity does not extend to a gaming ath employee in his individual capacity

Question 68

Cherokee Nation v. Nash (DCDC 2017) (24: What is an “Indian”?) (Era 6)

Answer 68

Cherokee Nation v. Nash (DCDC 2017) (24: What is an “Indian”?) (Era 6)  A treaty between the United States and the Cherokee Nation guarantees descendants of Cherokee-owned slaves the same rights as native Cherokees to Cherokee Nation citizenship.

Question 69

Spurr v. Spurr (Tribal Court 2018) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 6)

Answer 69

Spurr v. Spurr (Tribal Court 2018) (10: Civil Rights) (Era 6)  tribal governments generally do not possess jurisdiction over nonmembers unless the nonmembers consent or unless the nonmember conduct affects the political integrity, economic security, and health and welfare of the tribe and its members.

Question 70

Herrera v. Wyoming (2019) (2: Treaties) (139 S.Ct. 1686)

Answer 70

Herrera v. Wyoming (2019) (2: Treaties) (139 S.Ct. 1686) treaties to be construed as understood by tribal reps who participated in negotiation, thus treaty right to “hunt on unoccupied lands of United States so long as game may be found thereon” survived admission of Wyoming to statehood + no clear intent to abrogate 554, 555, 558

Question 71

McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) (140 S. Ct. 2452) (7: Disestablishment) (Era 6)

Answer 71

McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) (140 S. Ct. 2452) (7: Disestablishment) (Era 6)  Congress must enact legislation explicitly disestablishing reservation or else remains Indian land subject to Major Crimes Act

Question 72

Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation (2021) (22: Alaska) (Era 6)

Answer 72

Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation (2021) (22: Alaska) (Era 6)  ANCs, under the ISDA, do qualify as federally-recognized tribal governments, and thus are eligible to receive CARES funds.

Question 73

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022) (14: Criminal Jurisdiction I) (Era 6)

Answer 73

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022) (14: Criminal Jurisdiction I) (Era 6)  The General Crimes Act, as codified in 1948, no longer considered tribal lands as distinct from that of the state. State prosecution of non-Native Americans would not interfere with tribal governance.