Keith Richotte Jr. is an author and expert on Native American law, while Matthew L.M. Fletcher has written extensively on Indigenous rights. They discuss the complex evolution of Native American law from the Marshall Court to today, addressing the federal government's authority over tribes. They highlight the impact of Justice Scalia’s philosophy and recent positive trends in tribal sovereignty. The conversation also emphasizes the need for integrating Indigenous philosophies into governance and educating justices about Native rights.
The doctrine of plenary power has historically granted the federal government extensive authority over Native American tribes, rooted in systemic biases.
Distinct legal textualism approaches, particularly canary and muskrat textualism, reflect evolving attitudes toward tribal sovereignty and agency in Indian law.
A proposed shift towards a consent-based relationship between tribes and the federal government aims to realign governance with constitutional treaty obligations.
Deep dives
Plenary Power and Its Historical Context
The doctrine of plenary power asserts that the federal government holds limitless authority over Native American tribes, a concept rooted in historical racism and stereotypes. Initially articulated in the 1880s in the case of US v. Kagama, the court struggled to find a constitutional basis for this authority, initially rejecting the Commerce Clause as a justification. However, by the early 21st century, the Supreme Court began to embrace the Commerce Clause as the cornerstone of plenary power, suggesting a significant shift in legal interpretation. This evolution raises critical questions about when and how plenary power became constitutionally grounded, reflecting broader changes in societal attitudes toward Native American rights.
Muskrat vs. Canary Textualism
The discussion differentiates between two forms of legal textualism concerning Native American law: canary textualism and muskrat textualism. Canary textualism, exemplified by Justice Scalia, restricts the rights of tribes and often implies they lack agency, akin to a canary in a cage without any power. In contrast, muskrat textualism, showcased by Justice Gorsuch, emphasizes the real governing potential and agency of tribes, allowing for a more equitable interpretation of tribal rights. This distinction highlights the evolving nature of legal interpretations regarding Native American sovereignty, which increasingly acknowledges the self-determining capabilities of tribes.
The Allotment Era and Judicial Precedents
Key cases from the allotment era, such as Ex parte Crow Dog and US v. Kagama, illustrate the U.S. Supreme Court's treatment of Native American rights and the assertion of federal jurisdiction over tribal lands. In Crow Dog, the Supreme Court acknowledged the effectiveness of tribal justice systems, yet later cases paved the way for the federal government to impose its authority, often based on prejudiced assumptions about Native communities. These rulings laid the groundwork for the Major Crimes Act, which established federal jurisdiction over specific crimes on tribal lands, effectively undermining tribal sovereignty. The historical context reveals a pattern of systemic disenfranchisement, reflecting a larger trend of government efforts to assimilate Native Americans.
Shift in Judicial Philosophy
The conversation highlights how judicial philosophy towards Native American law has shifted over time, especially with recent decisions that consider indigenous perspectives more respectfully. The shift from a pragmatic approach to a textualist interpretation of the law suggests an increasing acknowledgment of tribal sovereignty and rights, as seen in cases like McGirt v. Oklahoma. These developments indicate a growing recognition of the importance of historical treaties and agreements that the United States has made with Native tribes. However, the fluctuating nature of judicial interpretations raises concerns about the adaptability of these rights in the face of changing court compositions and political climates.
The Future Relationship Between Tribes and the U.S. Government
A proposed rebalancing of the relationship between Native American tribes and the federal government emphasizes consent and mutual obligation, distancing from the oppressive model of plenary power. Acknowledging that tribal governance should align more closely with the treaty power in the Constitution, the conversation asserts that both parties must work collaboratively toward the betterment of each other. This approach challenges the historical assumption that federal authority over Native tribes is justified and unchangeable. Moving forward, recognizing the complexity of tribal governance and the importance of indigenous methodologies can significantly reshape legal structures and power dynamics.
In celebration of Native American History Month, Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Keith Richotte Jr., author of the forthcoming book The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told: Native America, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution and Matthew L.M. Fletcher, author of The Ghost Road: Anishinaabe Responses to Indian Hating to explore how Native American law has evolved from the Marshall Court to the present day—tracing how the Court came to grant the federal government broad authority over tribal affairs, and how tribes have begun to reassert their sovereignty under the Roberts Court.
This program was originally streamed live as part of the NCC’s America’s Town Hall series on November 4, 2024.