Cited by 26Indigenous Peoples' Rights and LawAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsIndigenous Cultures and History

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Federal Power over Indians: Its Sources, Scope, and Limitations

Newton, Nell Jessup·1984·University of Pennsylvania Law Review

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

Crossref · 10.2307/3311816

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 26

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
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