Posted by: Flatbrim Pescador
Tribal sovereignty in question after SCOTUS ruling - 07/05/22 06:29 PM
WA indigenous sovereignty in question after SCOTUS ruling on state-tribal domain
"In a ruling that could have cascading effects on the indigenous tribes of Washington state, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the federal government and the states have select, concurrent jurisdiction over Indian country, with dissenters arguing that hundreds of years of legal precedent governing the rule of law on tribal lands have been upended.
In 2015, Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta was charged by the State of Oklahoma with child neglect of his Cherokee Indian step-daughter while living in Tulsa. Following a change in federal classification of eastern Oklahoma’s Creek Nation reservation, Castro-Huerta appealed, arguing that only the federal government had the authority to prosecute his case.
In a 5-4 ruling on Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, majority opinion author Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that a state can prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians on reservations, writing “as a matter of state sovereignty, a State has jurisdiction over all of its territory, including Indian country...."
https://mynorthwest.com/3549053/tribal-sovereignty-scotus-ruling/
First Roe v. Wade and now this! Team MAGA just keeps winning! Can the Boldt decision be next? We have this case as precedent plus the fact that the Boldt decision was flawed from the beginning because "in common with" just means "the same as / like / in common with others in the region." Legally "in common with" means you have an undivided interest in the property.
Boldt divided it though, 50/50; but that it not what it means. It doesn't mean one guy in one race gets to gillnet 1000 fish and another guy in another race can maybe recreationaly fish for 1 fish after that first guy fishes. Also it doesn't mean that the first guy gets to also approves if the second guy even get a fishery after he takes his.
Do you agree? Most of the state agrees which is why the people passed an initiative ending "special rights" for Indigenous peoples,but the state refused to enforce it as because we keep losing in federal court. Is now our time boys? Is Boldt on the chopping block next?
"In a ruling that could have cascading effects on the indigenous tribes of Washington state, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the federal government and the states have select, concurrent jurisdiction over Indian country, with dissenters arguing that hundreds of years of legal precedent governing the rule of law on tribal lands have been upended.
In 2015, Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta was charged by the State of Oklahoma with child neglect of his Cherokee Indian step-daughter while living in Tulsa. Following a change in federal classification of eastern Oklahoma’s Creek Nation reservation, Castro-Huerta appealed, arguing that only the federal government had the authority to prosecute his case.
In a 5-4 ruling on Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, majority opinion author Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that a state can prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians on reservations, writing “as a matter of state sovereignty, a State has jurisdiction over all of its territory, including Indian country...."
https://mynorthwest.com/3549053/tribal-sovereignty-scotus-ruling/
First Roe v. Wade and now this! Team MAGA just keeps winning! Can the Boldt decision be next? We have this case as precedent plus the fact that the Boldt decision was flawed from the beginning because "in common with" just means "the same as / like / in common with others in the region." Legally "in common with" means you have an undivided interest in the property.
Boldt divided it though, 50/50; but that it not what it means. It doesn't mean one guy in one race gets to gillnet 1000 fish and another guy in another race can maybe recreationaly fish for 1 fish after that first guy fishes. Also it doesn't mean that the first guy gets to also approves if the second guy even get a fishery after he takes his.
Do you agree? Most of the state agrees which is why the people passed an initiative ending "special rights" for Indigenous peoples,but the state refused to enforce it as because we keep losing in federal court. Is now our time boys? Is Boldt on the chopping block next?