The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Federal Power over Indians: Its Sources, Scope, and Limitations
Abstract
Judicial deference to federal legislation affecting Indians is a theme that has persisted throughout the two-hundred-year history of American Indian law. The Supreme Court has sustained nearly every piece of federal legislation it has considered directly regulating Indian tribes, whether challenged as being beyond federal power or within that power but violating individual rights.' This judicial deference often has been justified by invoking federal plenary power to regulate Indian affairs and the political question doctrine's requirement of deference to the political branches. Indeed, not until 1977 did the Court explicitly repudiate use of the political question doctrine to bar equal protection challenges to federal legislation regulating Indian affairs.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Of Native Americans and Tribal Members: The Impact of Law on Indian Group Life
Goldberg, C. (1994) · Law & Society Review · doi:10.2307/3054025 · Cited by 27
There Is No Federal Supremacy Clause for Indian Tribes
Clinton, R. N. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108770804.020 · Cited by 24
Contested Identities: The Adoption of American Indian Children and the Liberal State
Slaughter, M. M. (2000) · Social & Legal Studies · doi:10.1177/096466390000900203 · Cited by 15
Indefinite Detention, Colonialism, and Settler Prerogative in the United States
Saito, N. T. (2018) · Social & Legal Studies · doi:10.1177/0964663918769362 · Cited by 13
“This characterization of Indigenous peoples as internal colonies laid the groundwork for the federal government’s subsequent assertion of absolute – ‘plenary’ – power over Indian affairs (Churchill, 2002: 673–679; Newton, 1984).”
BackgroundWilkins, D. E. (1994) · The American Indian Quarterly · doi:10.2307/1184741 · Cited by 10
“(12) Finally, there is plenary meaning unlimited or absolute (Newton, 1984: 196, note 3).”
Background‘‘With the greatest respect and fidelity:’ a Cherokee vision of the ‘Trust’ doctrine”
Wilkins, D. E. (1997) · The Social Science Journal · doi:10.1016/s0362-3319(97)90008-2 · Cited by 4
Congressional hearings: Neglected sources of information on American Indians
Staley, R. A. (2008) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.08.005 · Cited by 3
“The Supreme Court “has sustained nearly every piece of federal legislation it has considered directly regulating Indian tribes, whether challenged as being beyond federal power or within that power but violating individual rights” (Newton, 1984).”
BackgroundDividing Sovereignty in Tribal and Territorial Criminal JurisdictionPreprint
Price, Z. S. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2359689 · Cited by 3
Aboriginal Governments and the Charter: Lessons from the United States
McNeil, K. (2002) · Canadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et Société · doi:10.1017/s0829320100007250 · Cited by 1
Wilkins, D. E. (1993) · The Social Science Journal · doi:10.1016/0362-3319(93)90033-r · Cited by 2
Nichols, J. B. D., & Hamilton, R. (2020) · University of Toronto Law Journal · doi:10.3138/utlj.2019-0115 · Cited by 3
Xenophobia in the United States: Structural Drivers
Saito, N. T. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-13559-0_20 · Cited by 1
Native American Identity and the Limits of Cultural Defence
Kozin, A. V. (2010) · Law and Critique · doi:10.1007/s10978-010-9079-5 · Cited by 1
Sykes, B. E., Pendley, J., & Deacon, Z. (2017) · Gateways International Journal of Community Research and Engagement · doi:10.5130/ijcre.v10i1.5334 · Cited by 1
Policing Native American Lands in the United States
Morin, R. P., & Morin, C. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-19182-5_11 · Cited by 1
What Does It Mean to Be Sustainable?
Christensen, G. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108658386.036 · Cited by 1
Settlers and natives in North America
Mamdani, M. (2010) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813146.009
ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERALISM AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: COMPLEXITIES IN THE OKLAHOMA CONTEXT
Gowda, M. V. R., & Long, P. O. (2001) · Oklahoma politics
Chin, G. J. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3790810
Gamper‐Rabindran, S. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009039567.005
Master List of Additional Resources
Christensen, G., & Tatum, M. L. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108770804.025
Corporate Law, Corporate Governance and Sustainability: Case Studies
Sjåfjell, B., & Bruner, C. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108658386.015
Christensen, G., & Tatum, M. L. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108770804.018
Should Liberal Democracy Respect Group Rights that Discriminate against Women and Apostates?
Cohen‐Almagor, R. (2023) · Public Governance Administration and Finances Law Review · doi:10.53116/pgaflr.6816
Fleury-Graff, T. (2011) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/00c52599z2a50z41e5z8e9cz54480272a2a8
Metadata
- Authors
- Newton, N. J.
- Corresponding author
- Newton, Nell Jessup
- Venue
- University of Pennsylvania Law Review
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1984-01
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 195
- ISSN
- 0041-9907 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W801817366
- Semantic Scholar
- 5dad23d2335f2155f46fa3f226ff5143366702e9
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- University of Pennsylvania Law Review (publishedVersion)
- eYLS (Yale Law School) (submittedVersion)
- Penn Carey Law Legal Scholarship Repository (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › American Constitutional Law and Politics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
- Keywords
- federal Indian law, judicial deference, political question doctrine, Indian affairs legislation, Supreme Court, tribal sovereignty
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
