The Marshall Trilogy—a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases that became the legal foundation of the unique, government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the U.S. federal government—established a special doctrine known as the “Indian Canons of Construction.” The Canons became a powerful tool in treaty and statutory construction, providing that (1) the courts must interpret laws liberally and construe ambiguities in favor of tribes and (2) congressional intent must be clear if tribal rights and sovereignty are to be impinged in any way. In tracing the evolution of the doctrine, this Article argues that the Canons do not necessitate the narrow classification of federally recognized tribes. Instead, the Canons are rooted in the recognition of a special, government-to-government trust relationship equally applicable to all Indigenous groups—including Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders—and should, therefore, be reclassified as the “Indigenous Canons.” Had the Supreme Court utilized the more broadly construed “Indigenous Canons” when it interpreted the 1991 Apology Resolution, it would have rightly created a strong framework to better protect Native Hawaiian claims to self-determination.
The United States should lead the effort to respond to climate-induced community relocations and implement legislation to provide governance tools and resources so that communities forced to relocate due to rapid and radical climate change can be resilient.
A history of native american sovereignity that looks at US federal law as well as international law and thier effects on native populations.
To mandate a total surrender to the dictates of Anglo-American society would obviously be a self-defeating policy. Indeed, it may be that injustice will always have to be suffered by the Indian in order to remain distinct.
Voting rights advocates should explore section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act as a vehicle to combat voter intimidation.