Indian Law

Print
Book review
Volume 93.3
The Return to Autochthonous Law
Grant Christensen
Associate Professor of Law at the University of Alabama. Professor Christensen earned his J.D. from the Ohio State University and his L.L.M. in Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy from the University of Arizona.

This Book Review examines the significance of Professor David E. Wilkins’s newest book Indigenous Governance: Clans, Constitutions, and Consent. It suggests that Wilkins has produced a critically important collection of primary sources related to the origins of tribal government and that his contribution could not come at a better time within the discipline of Indian Law. This Book Review takes the position that Indian Law is seeing the emergence of a fourth wave of scholarship that recenters the conversation from tribal self-determination as a means of decolonization to one embracing the autochthonous powers of tribes themselves. It is distinct from earlier waves of Indian Law scholarship because it does not position tribal powers within the tribal-federal framework but recognizes them as distinct and subject to change at the direction of tribal leadership. To enable this genesis, scholars need primary research material that collects and summarizes the nature of the tribal sovereign using tradition and custom, tribal law and tribal judicial authority, and the founding documents and stories that ultimately create an Indigenous polity. Indigenous Governance is that text.

Print
Comment
Volume 92.5
Leveraging the Federal Trust Responsibility to Safeguard Net Neutrality on Tribal Lands
Morgan O. Schaack
B.A. 2023, University of California, Los Angeles; J.D. Candidate 2026, The University of Chicago Law School.

I would like to thank Professor Sarah Konsky and the editors and staff of The University of Chicago Law Review for their invaluable input.

The internet plays a crucial role in modern life; however, equal access to it is not guaranteed. Drawing on existing tribal spectrum sovereignty arguments, Morgan Schaack writes that the control exercised by the FCC’s licensing of the electromagnetic spectrum and language common in many tribal treaties create a tribal access right to spectrum under the trust responsibility. Framing this access to spectrum as a trust-protected resource, the Comment situates allowing tiered internet service in the absence of net neutrality as a violation of the government's obligations under the trust responsibility.