American federalism and intergovernmental innovation in state-tribal relations
Abstract
Relations between American Indian tribes and state governments are poorly understood; they have been inaccurately portrayed as exclusively or increasingly conflictual. This study balances such perceptions and identifies constructive patterns of state-tribal relations that developed between 1970 and 2003. President Richard M. Nixon's 1970 policy of Indian self-determination affirmed Indian tribes' survival; yet it failed, in the context of tribes' extraconstitutional status, to clarify their relationship to state governments. Since then, entrepreneurial tribal leaders have asserted sovereign governmental status while advocating practical and substantive cooperation with state governments in place of adversarial and legalistic relations. The partial success of these efforts has produced new intergovernmental mechanisms and the development of state-tribal relations as an ongoing and increasingly normalized category of intergovernmental relations, even amidst conflict over tribal gaming and a shifting political and legal environment.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some local governments may collaborate with tribal governments even if the state chooses not to.
“Some local governments may collaborate with tribal governments even if the state chooses not to (Steinman 2004).”
From Dividing Authority Three Ways: Federal–Tribal–State Relations after<i>Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta</i> (2023) · cites this paper as Steinman 2004
Several states have entered into accords with tribal governments or created state executive offices or commissions on Indian affairs.
“Several states have entered into accords with tribal governments (Steinman 2004) or created state executive offices or commissions on Indian affairs (Johnson et al. 2000(Johnson et al. , 2009)).”
From Dividing Authority Three Ways: Federal–Tribal–State Relations after<i>Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta</i> (2023) · cites this paper as Steinman 2004
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dividing Authority Three Ways: Federal–Tribal–State Relations after<i>Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta</i>
Carlson, K. M. (2023) · Publius: The Journal of Federalism · doi:10.1093/publius/pjad020 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Steinman, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Steinman, E.
- ORCID
- Steinman, E.
- Venue
- Publius: The Journal of Federalism
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-01-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 95-114
- ISSN
- 0048-5950 (ISSN-L)
- 1747-7107
- OpenAlex
- W1969469159
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 15.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Publius The Journal of Federalism (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Systems and Governance
- Keywords
- tribal-state relations, Native American tribes, intergovernmental relations, federalism, Indian self-determination, tribal sovereignty, tribal gaming, tribal entrepreneurship, tribal leaders, intergovernmental cooperation, tribal status
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review