STATES AND THEIR AMERICAN INDIAN CITIZENS
While the federal government has a special trust relationship with Indians and Indian nations, Indian people are also citizens and residents of the states in which they live. [...]states have obligations to Indians as well. The Village of Hobart attempted to impose a restrictive covenant on lands wi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American Indian law review 2017-01, Vol.41 (2), p.319-343 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | While the federal government has a special trust relationship with Indians and Indian nations, Indian people are also citizens and residents of the states in which they live. [...]states have obligations to Indians as well. The Village of Hobart attempted to impose a restrictive covenant on lands within its jurisdiction in an attempt to prevent the Oneida Indian Tribe of Wisconsin from acquiring trust lands, claiming an injury to the village tax base should Indians acquire the lands.6 That same village also unsuccessfully demanded that reservation Indians pay taxes in order to receive services from the county.7 The County of Manistee's sheriff s office cancelled a cross-deputization agreement with the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians in Michigan.8 In Fremont County, Wyoming, police refused to respond to calls for assistance by Wind River Indian Reservation police involving non-Indian suspects, claiming lack of jurisdiction.9 Elsewhere, Indian country communities routinely complain that state and local governments collect taxes on reservation activities without sharing revenues with tribal governments or providing equivalent services to reservation residents.10 Even tribal advocates often privately agree that such disparate treatment is just a consequence of the preservation of tribal sovereignty. The State of Minnesota, which enacted a statute implementing and domesticating the federal Indian Child Welfare Act,11 faces a federal constitutional challenge.12 The State of Washington, which entered into tax agreements with various tribes, narrowly prevailed against a state constitutional challenge.13 These "special rights" arguments are the same arguments the Supreme Court has robustly rejected in the treaty rights wordpress.com/2008/10/06/baylake-bank-v-tcgc-village-of-hobart-covenant-against-tribal-owner context,14 but they recur again and again. [...]states and localities that enter into intergovernmental cooperative agreements with Indian tribes would no longer be concerned with claims that those agreements are void without congressional approval. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0094-002X 1930-7918 |