Tanner Allread

Congrats, Grace!!

Congrats!! Looking forward to reading!

Thanks!

Thank you!! And congrats to you on your article prize!

I’m very honored to have received this prize for a paper on Choctaw constitutionalism that has defined much of my early career as a legal historian!

And thanks for the photo @maggieblackhawk.bsky.social!

Congrats, Holly!! This is so well-deserved! 🎉🎉🎉

MUNGIA, J. (concurring)—I concur with the majority’s opinion.1 And yet I dissent. Not from the majority’s opinion, but I dissent from the racism embedded in the federal case law that applies to this dispute. FEDERAL INDIAN LAW IS A PRODUCT OF THE RACIST BELIEFS ENDEMIC IN OUR SOCIETY AND OUR LEGAL SYSTEM While it is certainly necessary to follow federal case law on issues involving Native American tribes and their members, at the same time it is important to call out that the very foundations of those opinions were based on racism and white supremacy. By doing this, readers of our opinions will have no doubt that the current court disavows, and condemns, those racist sentiments, beliefs, and statements.

Since the founding of our country, the federal government has characterized Native Americans as “savages”: They were “uncivilized.” They had little claim to the land upon which they lived. At times, the federal government attempted to eradicate Native Americans through genocidal policies. At other times, the federal government employed ethnic cleansing by forcibly removing children from their parents’ homes to strip them from their culture, their language, and their beings.2 Federal Indian case law arises from those racist underpinnings. The majority correctly cites to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L. Ed. 25 (1831), which is one of the foundational cases involving tribal sovereignty. That opinion is rife with racist attitudes toward Native Americans. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority, describes a tribe’s relationship to the federal government as one of “ward to his guardian.” Id. at 17. In effect, the opinion presents tribal members as children, and the federal government as the adult. That theme would follow in later opinions by the United States Supreme Court—as would the theme of white supremacy. Cherokee Nation began with the premise that Native American tribes, once strong and powerful, were no match for the white race and so found themselves “gradually sinking beneath our superior policy, our arts and our arms.” Id. at 15. The white man was considered the teacher, the Native Americans the pupils:

Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. Id. at 17. This characterization of superior to inferior, teacher to student, guardian to ward, was repeated in later United States Supreme Court opinions. In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903), often characterized as the “American Indian Dred Scott,” 3 the Court used that rationale to justify ruling that the United States could break its treaties with Native American tribes. These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation. They are communities dependent on the United States. Dependent largely for their daily food. Dependent for their political rights. . . . From their very weakness and helplessness . . . there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power. Id. at 567 (quoting United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 383-84, 6 S. Ct. 1109, 30 L. Ed. 228 (1886)). Our court also carries the shame of denigrating Native Americans by using that same characterization: “The Indian was a child, and a dangerous child, of nature, to be both protected and restrained.” State v. Towessnute, 89 Wash. 478, 482, 154 P. 805 (1916), judgment vacated and opinion repudiated by 197 Wn.2d 574, 486 P.3d 111 (2020). 3 See A

Returning to Cherokee Nation, Justice William Johnson’s separate opinion was less tempered in how he considered the various Native American tribes: I cannot but think that there are strong reasons for doubting the applicability of the epithet state, to a people so low in the grade of organized society as our Indian tribes most generally are. Cherokee Nation, 30 U.S. at 21. Native Americans were not to be treated as “equals to equals” but, instead, the United States was the conqueror and Native Americans the conquered. Id. at 23. In discussing Native Americans, Justice Johnson employed another racist trope used by judges both before and after him: Native Americans were uncivilized savages. [W]e have extended to them the means and inducement to become agricultural and civilized. . . . Independently of the general influence of humanity, these people were restless, warlike, and signally cruel. . . . . But I think it very clear that the constitution neither speaks of them as states or foreign states, but as just what they were, Indian tribes . . . which the law of nations would regard as nothing more than wandering hordes, held together only by ties of blood and habit, and having neither laws or government, beyond what is required in a savage state. Id. at 23, 27-28. This same characterization was used by Justice Stanley Matthews in Ex parte KanGi-Shun-Ca (otherwise known as Crow Dog), 109 U.S. 556, 3 S. Ct. 396, 27 L. Ed. 1030 (1883). Justice Matthews described Native Americans as leading a savage life.

Washington Supreme Court Justice Mungia has an extraordinary opinion condemning "the underlying racism and prejudices that are woven into the very fabric" of SCOTUS opinions about Native people.

"We must clearly, loudly, and unequivocally state that was wrong.”
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf...

Congrats!!

Tribal Courts and Constitutions of American Indian Tribes Tribal courts and constitutions shape governance for American Indian tribes, balancing sovereignty with federal law in their unique legal systems. 

NEW: There are 574 federally recognized American Indian tribes in the United States, each with their own unique legal system. @milov-cordobam.bsky.social and Dan Lewerenz provide a brief overview of the tribal courts, law, and constitutions that shape governance for American Indian tribes.

IMO, if Indigenous nations are sovereign, then we are responsible for our mistakes. We cannot hold the United States accountable for the wrongs of history committed against us, but not take account for our wrong of chattel slavery. On the long path of repair, citizenship is only the first step.

This is huge!! A win for Freedmen and another step in the right direction for Native nations upholding treaty rights!

Congrats, Maggie!! Very much looking forward to reading this!

Yes, you definitely are! I don’t think historical methodology is purely the province of those with history Ph.D.’s. Plenty of people without those degrees, including you and Julian, are doing careful and robust history (just not those who often claim to be originalists and thus do “history”).

Couldn’t think of a better book on the constitutional history of the early American republic! The Interbellum Constitution (and really all of Alison’s work) is masterful scholarship!

So well deserved! Go read Sarah’s amazing scholarship on abolition and Black activism in New York!

This was a really fun panel!! And it was an honor to sit alongside and be in conversation with some of the best constitutional historians: Mary Sarah Bilder, @rachelshelden.bsky.social, @janemanners.bsky.social, & @jdmortenson.bsky.social. And thanks to @jgienapp.bsky.social for organizing this!

Exactly. If everybody saw me before and after talks and teaching, they’d see how much time I have to spend by myself to gather the energy for my performance persona 😆

I’d gladly meet with you anytime of day, Anna, but getting you first thing in the morning—when I as an introvert will also be at my best—can’t be beat!

Looking forward to your panel too and to hopefully meeting in person!

Leonard Peltier talks freedom, future after nearly 50 years in prison After spending most of his life behind bars, Leonard Peltier now lives in a home on the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa reservation in North Dakota. He says he has no regrets but still harbors…

At a moment when the problems our world is facing feel insurmountable, I found a lot of inspiration in this. My friend and reporter Allison Herrera sat down with recently freed Leonard Peltier, one of the longest-serving political prisoners in the U.S.

Also shout out to @crispinsouth.com for great legal scholarship (cited in the article) on the constitutional provision this amendment addresses!

And while this amendment introduces uncertainty regarding some rights, as I say in the article, I don’t think the recognition of same-sex marriage is “jeopardized” due to the Indian Civil Rights Act and the lack of political will in the Choctaw Nation to overturn it.

However, I think the framing of this article is slightly misleading. Decoupling Choctaw rights from OK and federal rights is certainly narrowing, but not “lessening” when you’re bolstering tribal autonomy to determine what rights citizens should enjoy.

Nice to have my work on tribal constitutions become directly relevant to my own tribe. Read what I had to say hear:

The Oklahoma Supreme Court (post-McGirt v. Oklahoma) has been making a mockery of law through its egregious and incoherent misapplication of fundamental Indian law principles. Yesterday, they did so once again re: income taxes: turtletalk.blog/wp-content/u...

David Weber’s The Spanish Frontier in North America is a good place to start

Happy to share that my Note, “Transplanted Rights in the Choctaw Nation: Threats to Sovereignty and Potential Solutions,” has been published in the Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights!

Link below if #LawSky #LawTwitter wants to check it out!

I’m honored, and glad you found them helpful! Looking forward to reading the book and returning the favor!

Yes, I’ll be there! Looking forward to catching up!