The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told: Native America, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution
U.S. Law and Race Initiative
Author
03/11/2025
Added
1
Plays
Description
Join our Rights & Wrongs in American Legal History class for a discussion with guest speaker Professor Keith Richotte, Jr., about the Supreme Court's understanding of Native America from an Indigenous perspective, moderated by Dr. Katrina Jagodinsky.
Searchable Transcript
Toggle between list and paragraph view.
- [00:00:00.000]Good morning, everyone.
- [00:00:06.480]I would like to thank you for joining us today
- [00:00:08.520]for the second webinar in our spring 2025 series
- [00:00:11.800]produced by the U.S. Law and Race Initiative.
- [00:00:15.240]I'm Anne Gregory,
- [00:00:16.100]and I'm a second year graduate student in history
- [00:00:18.160]at University of Nebraska-Lincoln
- [00:00:20.440]studying Native American legal history.
- [00:00:24.620]Launched with support in January of 2023,
- [00:00:28.500]the initiative explores new approaches to research,
- [00:00:31.980]teaching, and public engagement
- [00:00:33.560]with the history of law, gender, and race in the United States.
- [00:00:37.460]Funded by the Mellon Foundation,
- [00:00:39.480]our work brings together large university teaching programs,
- [00:00:42.700]immersive new forms of digital media content,
- [00:00:45.160]and community partnership storytelling
- [00:00:46.760]to connect Americans to their history
- [00:00:48.340]in ways that repair the fractures
- [00:00:49.880]and our understanding of race and racialization.
- [00:00:53.740]Doctors Will Thomas, Jeannette Eileen Jones,
- [00:00:56.580]Katrina Jagodinsky, and Donna Anderson
- [00:00:58.840]are the faculty leads on the initiative
- [00:01:01.080]along with an array of expert partners
- [00:01:03.100]in the College of Arts and Sciences
- [00:01:04.760]and College of Law at University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
- [00:01:08.540]We are hosting a series of webinars
- [00:01:10.640]deepening the national conversation of race
- [00:01:13.600]and are excited to platform a discussion
- [00:01:15.720]about Supreme Court history and relation to Native America
- [00:01:18.760]and the trickster doctrine of plenary power.
- [00:01:22.280]We are honored to have with us today,
- [00:01:24.100]Dr. Keith Richotte, Jr.
- [00:01:26.260]Dr. Richotte is a director
- [00:01:27.620]of the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program
- [00:01:31.220]and professor of law at the James E. Rogers College of Law
- [00:01:35.000]at the University of Arizona.
- [00:01:37.600]Dr. Richotte has served his tribal nation,
- [00:01:39.800]the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians
- [00:01:41.800]as an Associate Justice on the Appellate Court since 2009
- [00:01:45.700]and also serves as the Chief Justice of the Appellate Court
- [00:01:49.580]of the Spirit Lake Nation.
- [00:01:51.820]He received his JD from the Minnesota Law School,
- [00:01:55.160]his PhD from the University of Minnesota,
- [00:01:57.420]and his LLM from the IPLP program.
- [00:02:01.460]His first book, Claiming Turtle Mountain's Constitution:
- [00:02:04.680]The History, Legacy, and Future
- [00:02:06.280]of a Tribal Nation's Founding Documents
- [00:02:08.440]demonstrated the need to study
- [00:02:10.300]the origins of tribal constitutions.
- [00:02:13.100]His latest book, The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told:
- [00:02:17.220]Native America, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution,
- [00:02:20.160]is an irreverent, entertaining synthesis
- [00:02:22.580]of Native American legal history
- [00:02:24.340]across more than 100 years,
- [00:02:26.160]reflecting on race, power, and sovereignty along the way.
- [00:02:30.660]Our host, Dr. Katrina Jagodinsky, is a legal historian
- [00:02:34.120]examining marginalized people's engagement
- [00:02:36.500]with 19th century legal regimes
- [00:02:38.260]and competing jurisdictions
- [00:02:39.980]throughout the North American West.
- [00:02:42.300]Her current research project, Petitioning for Freedom,
- [00:02:45.160]is a public database of thousands of petitions
- [00:02:47.820]lodged to challenge coercion and confinement
- [00:02:50.160]in the American West between 1812 and 1924,
- [00:02:53.860]offering a compelling portrait
- [00:02:55.860]of marginalized people's legal mobilization
- [00:02:58.300]and campaigns for racial and social justice.
- [00:03:02.500]Doctors Richotte and Jagodinsky are going to be in conversation
- [00:03:04.960]for about 30 minutes before we turn to your questions.
- [00:03:09.120]Please feel free to submit your questions
- [00:03:11.560]at any time using the Zoom chat,
- [00:03:13.700]and please give a warm welcome to Dr. Richotte.
- [00:03:18.510]Thank you so much, Anne, for that welcome and introduction.
- [00:03:22.290]And Dr. Richotte, it's just a pleasure
- [00:03:23.670]to be in conversation with you
- [00:03:25.050]this morning.
- [00:03:26.290]I wanna thank obviously our RAs, Anne Gregory,
- [00:03:30.430]as well as Emily Binder,
- [00:03:32.310]and our project manager, Kaci Nash,
- [00:03:35.270]in addition to my fellow faculty
- [00:03:37.270]on the U.S. Law and Race Initiative
- [00:03:39.010]who are joining us this morning.
- [00:03:41.150]I also wanna welcome some of our community partners
- [00:03:43.650]from Vision Maker Media and across the university campus
- [00:03:47.030]in addition to those guests
- [00:03:48.330]who are perhaps joining our webinar series
- [00:03:50.430]for the first time.
- [00:03:51.610]Welcome and thank you.
- [00:03:52.470]We also have our History 340 class joining us this morning.
- [00:03:58.530]And we are in the midst of a two-week section
- [00:04:01.810]on Native legal history.
- [00:04:04.170]So they are prepped to learn from you this morning
- [00:04:07.670]and engage in some questions after your presentation.
- [00:04:11.810]I wanna thank you, Dr. Richotte,
- [00:04:13.270]for sharing some of your previous work with us
- [00:04:15.810]about the ways in which law generally,
- [00:04:19.450]but also in particularly the venue of Native legal history
- [00:04:23.450]is in many ways a form of storytelling
- [00:04:26.410]that is imbued with political and legal implication.
- [00:04:30.790]And so we're excited to hear about your presentation
- [00:04:34.210]on the Worst Trickster Story Ever Told.
- [00:04:36.650]Thank you again for joining us.
- [00:04:39.290]Well, thank you so much
- [00:04:39.930]and thank you for inviting me here today.
- [00:04:42.270]It's a real pleasure to be here.
- [00:04:43.990]And considering the title
- [00:04:45.530]of this particular webinar series,
- [00:04:47.410]I would also, we're dealing with that U.S. law and race.
- [00:04:51.890]I would also like to welcome Elon Musk
- [00:04:53.990]or whoever else is listening to this on his behalf.
- [00:04:57.230]And in this moment in which we are fighting ourselves
- [00:05:01.490]in American history,
- [00:05:03.210]we should be open and honest with each other.
- [00:05:05.970]And so let me offer my apologies
- [00:05:07.270]to any Cyber Truck enthusiasts out there,
- [00:05:09.910]but that really does seem like a terrible vehicle.
- [00:05:11.990]I'm sorry, Elon.
- [00:05:12.930]All right, anyway.
- [00:05:19.140]Oh, come on, slide.
- [00:05:24.280]Anyway, what are we doing here?
- [00:05:26.820]Okay, so here's the deal.
- [00:05:28.940]I wrote a book, all right.
- [00:05:31.260]And when you write a book,
- [00:05:33.140]you kind of want to tell everybody about it.
- [00:05:35.800]And more importantly, perhaps,
- [00:05:37.820]the people who publish it
- [00:05:39.280]want you to tell everybody about it.
- [00:05:42.100]And so then when you have good colleagues,
- [00:05:45.060]as we do here, they get excited
- [00:05:47.500]and when they find out that you've written a book,
- [00:05:50.800]and they're all like,
- [00:05:51.660]oh, I know just the place for you to talk about.
- [00:05:55.580]So, here we are, right?
- [00:05:58.900]And today I'm going to tell you about my new book,
- [00:06:01.040]which I hope will be of interest to folks
- [00:06:02.780]taking this particular class
- [00:06:04.480]or have interest in this webinar series.
- [00:06:08.520]All right, so as you know,
- [00:06:09.740]the title of the book is the Worst Trickster Story Ever Told
- [00:06:12.260]and it was just released
- [00:06:13.560]with Stanford University City Press
- [00:06:15.460]just a little less than a month ago.
- [00:06:18.080]So hot off the presses, right?
- [00:06:19.780]Get it while you can.
- [00:06:22.080]And there are three aspects of the book
- [00:06:24.440]that I want to talk with you today about.
- [00:06:27.080]The first is going to be tricksters and trickster stories.
- [00:06:30.720]Second is plenary power, right?
- [00:06:33.300]So my guess is you have some sense of what a trickster is,
- [00:06:37.100]but we'll go into that a little bit more.
- [00:06:39.240]You might not have as much sense
- [00:06:40.540]about what plenary power is,
- [00:06:42.020]but you will have an understanding after today.
- [00:06:45.460]And then third,
- [00:06:46.260]and perhaps most important for our conversation,
- [00:06:48.440]we're going to talk about how plenary power
- [00:06:51.080]became part of the U.S. Constitution.
- [00:06:55.100]So let's start with tricksters and trickster stories.
- [00:06:57.440]I mean, the title of the book
- [00:06:58.620]is the Worst Trickster Story Ever Told,
- [00:07:00.260]so we have to start there.
- [00:07:02.300]Now, the puppet rendering
- [00:07:07.100]is a character named Nanabozho
- [00:07:09.560]who is the trickster figure for the Anishinaabe people,
- [00:07:12.780]folks that I am a part of, right?
- [00:07:15.680]And I found this image of him.
- [00:07:18.080]Somebody did some YouTube videos.
- [00:07:19.600]And once you know a little bit more about tricksters,
- [00:07:23.000]YouTube videos kind of seems
- [00:07:24.540]like an appropriate place for them, okay?
- [00:07:27.320]Anyway, as one might imagine,
- [00:07:29.320]tricksters and trickster stories
- [00:07:30.300]can be a little hard to pin down.
- [00:07:32.500]And we'll just start with tricksters themselves.
- [00:07:35.240]Now, they are actually found
- [00:07:36.500]in the cultural traditions of people all around the world.
- [00:07:39.960]Basically, everybody at some point in time
- [00:07:42.640]has had a trickster figure as part of their culture.
- [00:07:46.600]And again, today,
- [00:07:47.420]my reference is gonna be to Nanabozho,
- [00:07:49.800]the trickster figure for Anishinaabe.
- [00:07:52.640]Now, the thing about tricksters
- [00:07:54.020]is they're the complex creatures in some ways.
- [00:07:58.260]Some ways very simple, but some ways very complex, right?
- [00:08:01.020]In the sense that there are a lot of things
- [00:08:04.760]that can happen with a trickster.
- [00:08:06.280]A trickster might cause chaos, right?
- [00:08:08.700]Or the trickster might be a hero
- [00:08:10.800]or the trickster might be a fool, right?
- [00:08:13.600]Could fill various assortment of roles.
- [00:08:16.540]So that a trickster might say cause an argument
- [00:08:19.460]between two different animals or peoples,
- [00:08:22.200]or as is the case with many,
- [00:08:25.140]with almost every cultural tradition.
- [00:08:27.760]It's the trickster who brings fire to humans, right?
- [00:08:30.740]So that life is easier and more palatable, right?
- [00:08:33.620]Imagine what life would have been like
- [00:08:34.760]in the early days without fire, right?
- [00:08:36.680]So the trickster is somebody who's a hero
- [00:08:38.820]who brings this thing that's necessary for human beings.
- [00:08:43.080]But then again, the trickster might also do something dumb
- [00:08:45.240]that we can laugh at.
- [00:08:47.640]So fills all of these different roles.
- [00:08:50.080]However, no matter what function
- [00:08:52.720]in which the trickster operates in a particular story,
- [00:08:56.400]he is going to disrupt the status quo
- [00:08:59.000]and create the space for us to ponder the world
- [00:09:02.020]in which we live.
- [00:09:04.440]So gives a space to think about things differently.
- [00:09:09.060]Now, another important characteristic about tricksters
- [00:09:11.200]is that they are both human and divine.
- [00:09:14.040]So for example, Nanabozho's mother was human
- [00:09:16.900]and his father was a supernatural being,
- [00:09:20.340]which means that tricksters exist everywhere
- [00:09:22.840]along the spectrum between us mere mortal and the gods,
- [00:09:26.440]right?
- [00:09:26.940]They can be anywhere within that space.
- [00:09:31.420]So for example, Nanabozho can make magic, right?
- [00:09:33.880]He can make things,
- [00:09:35.280]he can conjure things seemingly out of thin air, right?
- [00:09:39.040]But he can also be as silly and foolish as any of us, right?
- [00:09:43.380]He can do strange and silly things
- [00:09:46.580]and is often motivated by his own selfish desires.
- [00:09:53.040]But because they exist on this spectrum,
- [00:09:56.260]that means they also act as a bridge
- [00:09:58.380]between us and the supernatural
- [00:10:00.160]and that they change and shape
- [00:10:02.760]both the space of the gods and our space, right?
- [00:10:08.220]So for example, again, almost every tradition
- [00:10:12.500]that I've come across, right?
- [00:10:15.100]That is the trickster who brings fire, right?
- [00:10:17.920]Steals it from the gods, brings it to the humans.
- [00:10:20.320]And in doing that alters the space of the gods
- [00:10:23.360]and also the space of humanity.
- [00:10:26.900]So they exist along the spectrum, right?
- [00:10:29.760]But then they are also ultimately agents of change, right?
- [00:10:35.680]Tricksters, because of what they do and how they operate,
- [00:10:38.520]they create change.
- [00:10:43.760]Now, as far as trickster stories, the stories themselves,
- [00:10:48.180]sometimes they are meant to teach
- [00:10:49.580]and sometimes they're meant to explain
- [00:10:51.320]and sometimes they're meant to be funny.
- [00:10:53.240]So more often than not,
- [00:10:54.600]they're more than one of these things at once.
- [00:10:57.560]So for example, there's a story of Nanabozho
- [00:11:00.900]who was perpetually hungry, never not hungry.
- [00:11:04.620]And he's walking along a riverbank
- [00:11:06.000]and he sees these berries in the river.
- [00:11:08.340]And so he tries to eat the berries, right?
- [00:11:10.640]That are in the river and is frustrated
- [00:11:13.200]because he can't grab ahold of the berries.
- [00:11:15.400]And of course the crux of the story is that the berries
- [00:11:19.860]are actually just a reflection
- [00:11:21.220]and they're hanging in a tree, right?
- [00:11:23.900]But he gets so frustrated that he ultimately doesn't eat,
- [00:11:27.720]right?
- [00:11:28.160]And it's a very silly story when told by a good storyteller,
- [00:11:33.000]which clearly I am not in this mini rendering
- [00:11:36.980]of this particular tale.
- [00:11:39.600]But it's meant to reflect Nanabozho's silliness.
- [00:11:47.380]In addition, there's another story, right?
- [00:11:49.020]Just for example, where Nanabozho
- [00:11:50.980]gives roses their thorns.
- [00:11:53.440]He's the reason why thorns have roses.
- [00:11:57.380]And it is an example of Nanabozho's ability
- [00:12:00.960]to create things as almost a magician, right?
- [00:12:05.580]Somebody who can make things happen,
- [00:12:07.980]fundamentally change the world.
- [00:12:09.540]It's also a story about ecological balance
- [00:12:13.080]and caring for the things that are important to you, right?
- [00:12:16.960]So it's a story in which you're learning
- [00:12:19.800]about your own environment
- [00:12:21.600]and what it means to be part of a larger ecosystem.
- [00:12:27.080]And we see again, this character who's perpetually hungry,
- [00:12:31.300]can't figure out that the berries in the water
- [00:12:34.360]are not real, right?
- [00:12:36.180]But can nonetheless give roses thorns
- [00:12:38.200]and offer a lesson about the world in which we live.
- [00:12:45.300]So that sometimes again,
- [00:12:46.360]we are supposed to learn with these stories
- [00:12:48.040]and sometimes we're supposed to laugh.
- [00:12:50.640]But we're always meant to think, right?
- [00:12:53.100]We're always meant to think,
- [00:12:54.160]even the story about the berries, right?
- [00:12:57.380]Is an opportunity to reflect upon impetuousness.
- [00:13:01.380]And what we do when we don't take a moment
- [00:13:03.300]to take a step back and think about our actions
- [00:13:07.280]and what it is that we're doing.
- [00:13:09.820]So we're always supposed to think with these stories.
- [00:13:14.620]Now, in today's quote unquote modern world,
- [00:13:17.880]these stories are not as visible as they once were.
- [00:13:20.060]We're not telling each other trickster stories
- [00:13:22.080]in the same way that we once did.
- [00:13:24.260]And in fact, in today's modern world,
- [00:13:27.020]we tend to sequester these stories in the past
- [00:13:30.240]or among the juvenile with words like folklore
- [00:13:33.100]or mythology or legends, right?
- [00:13:35.400]These are the old stories that we used to believe, right?
- [00:13:38.640]And so that we act as if we have moved beyond them
- [00:13:42.540]in our adult rational world.
- [00:13:46.140]However, to pit trickster stories against science
- [00:13:49.660]or rationality in some sort of winner take all battle
- [00:13:53.000]for the truth is to miss the point.
- [00:13:57.940]These stories offer us the opportunity
- [00:14:00.680]to conceptualize the spaces beyond the borders
- [00:14:03.680]that we have drawn for ourselves, right?
- [00:14:06.040]They're meant for us to think, right?
- [00:14:09.780]Meant for us to explore or understand
- [00:14:11.320]or imagine a world above and beyond our own, right?
- [00:14:15.740]They give us the opportunity to see the world
- [00:14:18.780]not just as it is, but what it could be
- [00:14:20.880]and what possibilities there are, right?
- [00:14:23.560]Nanabu, you can make things.
- [00:14:25.120]What can we make?
- [00:14:26.380]How do we relate with our environment?
- [00:14:30.320]And how do we change our environment
- [00:14:32.620]for better or for ill?
- [00:14:36.140]Furthermore, we still honor the spirit of the trickster
- [00:14:39.120]anytime we log someone who has quote unquote
- [00:14:42.320]changed the game or quote unquote broken all the rules
- [00:14:45.900]in a way that innovates for the better.
- [00:14:49.690]So I could go on and on about this
- [00:14:51.450]but I suspect that you get the point.
- [00:14:53.150]So let me give you the one idea
- [00:14:54.530]that I really want you to hold onto, okay?
- [00:14:59.450]Tricksters are creators and trickster stories
- [00:15:02.290]are stories of creation, right?
- [00:15:04.910]Nanabozho can make all these things,
- [00:15:06.850]can reshape the world.
- [00:15:08.770]He is a creator.
- [00:15:10.710]The stories we tell about him are the stories of creation.
- [00:15:13.870]He is the reason why animals have certain markings
- [00:15:16.770]or why the landscape looks the way that it does.
- [00:15:20.790]So they are creators.
- [00:15:22.090]These are stories of creation.
- [00:15:26.100]All right, let's go on to point number two,
- [00:15:28.560]plenary power.
- [00:15:30.420]Now plenary power is a legal doctrine
- [00:15:33.400]that's really at the heart of the book.
- [00:15:35.920]Well, what do we know about it?
- [00:15:38.000]Well, it's a doctrine of American law
- [00:15:39.720]that is found in federal Indian law
- [00:15:42.280]but also in immigration law and the law of territories,
- [00:15:45.420]law of the territories as well.
- [00:15:48.400]What is plenary power?
- [00:15:49.860]What is this doctrine?
- [00:15:51.700]It is basically the federal government giving itself
- [00:15:54.060]seemingly limitless authority to legislate
- [00:15:56.480]and regulate in this area.
- [00:15:59.180]So that an Indian law that has been the legal justification
- [00:16:02.080]for well over a century for the excessive exercise
- [00:16:05.600]of force and coercion through efforts like boarding schools,
- [00:16:08.920]allotment, reservations, termination, relocation,
- [00:16:13.060]number of things that I imagine that you have read about
- [00:16:16.160]in this part of your course, right?
- [00:16:19.080]So all these things and numerous other laws and efforts
- [00:16:22.380]with the aims of destroying tribal rights
- [00:16:25.060]and land claims and ways of life
- [00:16:26.960]while justifying federal claims and authority
- [00:16:29.780]over tribal territory and resources.
- [00:16:34.490]And the Supreme Court has not been particularly subtle
- [00:16:37.510]in describing it in this way.
- [00:16:40.430]Now, if you're at this webinar or part of this course,
- [00:16:44.310]I am presuming that you are going to read.
- [00:16:46.590]So I'm not gonna do the tedious thing
- [00:16:48.190]that some folks do and read the full thing for you
- [00:16:51.090]but we just wanna point out,
- [00:16:53.250]or I just wanna point out a few things
- [00:16:55.090]about some Supreme Court cases, right?
- [00:16:58.190]That helped to shape,
- [00:17:00.190]help us to understand the shape of this plenary power.
- [00:17:02.910]So Justice Willows Van Devanter in 1914, right?
- [00:17:06.470]Describes Native peoples as wards, right?
- [00:17:09.350]Well, what is a ward?
- [00:17:10.650]It's somebody who can't take care of themselves.
- [00:17:13.430]And he says that the federal government can quote,
- [00:17:15.570]assume full control over Native peoples.
- [00:17:19.610]Couple of years later, Justice Malhon Pitney, right?
- [00:17:23.510]Tells us that the federal government has full power,
- [00:17:27.250]full power concerning tribal property, right?
- [00:17:30.270]Can do whatever it wants with tribal property.
- [00:17:34.520]We get a little closer to the mid 20th century,
- [00:17:37.100]Justice Frank Murphy.
- [00:17:38.840]He tells us that it does not matter
- [00:17:42.020]if tribal peoples are citizens.
- [00:17:45.100]The federal government still has this authority, right?
- [00:17:47.600]So you take a step back, you think about that, right?
- [00:17:50.140]The citizenship and the rights of citizenship
- [00:17:53.080]as we conceptualize them in the United States
- [00:17:56.180]are supposed to protect individuals
- [00:17:58.880]from the overarching force of the government,
- [00:18:02.460]that we have rights as citizens
- [00:18:04.440]that cannot be violated by the federal government.
- [00:18:07.900]And what the Supreme Court is telling us is those rights,
- [00:18:12.200]those barriers to the force of the federal government
- [00:18:15.280]don't matter when it comes to Native peoples, right?
- [00:18:19.020]That federal government has plenary power,
- [00:18:20.760]can do whatever it wants.
- [00:18:22.740]So that some of the traditional barriers
- [00:18:25.080]like citizenship, like treaties,
- [00:18:28.640]like international law, right?
- [00:18:30.680]That they do not matter, that the constitution,
- [00:18:33.740]they don't matter in terms of limiting the authority
- [00:18:37.040]of the federal government over Native peoples.
- [00:18:41.520]Now, lest you think that these are all just references
- [00:18:45.000]to dusty cases from the long ago,
- [00:18:47.820]let's bring it to the 21st century.
- [00:18:50.660]So that in a case that I can't believe
- [00:18:53.540]is over 20 years old now,
- [00:18:55.200]but it is still in the 21st century, right?
- [00:18:58.260]Justice Stephen Breyer explains plenary powers,
- [00:19:01.940]the federal government having these broad general powers
- [00:19:05.120]over Native peoples.
- [00:19:08.360]And perhaps again, it's worth noting
- [00:19:11.160]in our particular time as well too,
- [00:19:15.980]that, excuse me,
- [00:19:20.140]that plenary power is not limited
- [00:19:21.800]to one wing of the court, right?
- [00:19:25.020]That is something that is embraced by the court as a whole.
- [00:19:31.180]So here we have Justice Kagan,
- [00:19:32.960]who we identify, recognize or label as somebody
- [00:19:37.300]as part of the liberal wing of the court.
- [00:19:39.640]And we imagine or understand the liberal wing of the court
- [00:19:42.900]is perhaps having maybe more sympathy for Native folks,
- [00:19:47.440]which is sometimes true, sometimes not, right?
- [00:19:50.900]But even if we take somebody
- [00:19:53.400]who we would imagine certain things about
- [00:19:56.100]from their jurisprudence,
- [00:19:58.540]this person is still embracing plenary power, right?
- [00:20:03.260]Justice Kagan tells us Native peoples
- [00:20:05.340]makes reference to them as dependents, right?
- [00:20:08.380]The federal government having this plenary control.
- [00:20:10.860]So it's not just one part of the court that's doing this,
- [00:20:14.560]it is the court as a whole that is understanding
- [00:20:17.300]and describing plenary power in these terms.
- [00:20:25.210]So it is this long standing, right?
- [00:20:30.610]All encompassing authority that the federal government
- [00:20:32.610]has assumed over Native peoples
- [00:20:34.210]that I am referencing when I'm asking about plenary power.
- [00:20:38.930]But that gets then to the third point we wanna talk about,
- [00:20:41.990]which is when did plenary power become constitutional?
- [00:20:47.670]And this is where the story gets a little weird.
- [00:20:53.020]Okay, so the plenary power that I'm describing
- [00:20:55.740]is basically introduced in an 1886 case called U.S. v. Kagama.
- [00:21:00.560]Now, we only have so much time together,
- [00:21:04.180]so we're gonna cut straight to the bone with this case,
- [00:21:06.300]not get too much into detail of any of these cases,
- [00:21:08.960]which I want you to know is very difficult for me
- [00:21:12.840]because I am a law professor,
- [00:21:14.740]which means that I am without question a gasbag.
- [00:21:18.140]That I desperately enjoy the sound of my own voice.
- [00:21:21.560]And so not having the opportunity to talk more and more
- [00:21:25.300]and more and trying to limit myself is trying on the soul,
- [00:21:30.260]but we're gonna cut to the chase here.
- [00:21:33.340]Anyway, question of the case in Kagama was essentially,
- [00:21:36.720]does Congress have the authority to pass a state statute
- [00:21:39.260]that reshapes tribal sovereignty?
- [00:21:41.220]The statute in question in Kagama
- [00:21:42.660]is a statute called the Major Crimes Act.
- [00:21:45.620]And basically what the Major Crimes Act was
- [00:21:48.180]is the federal government said,
- [00:21:49.620]okay, we now have authority over certain,
- [00:21:53.440]we have jurisdiction,
- [00:21:54.580]we have the authority to criminally prosecute crimes
- [00:21:57.580]committed by one Native person
- [00:21:59.440]against another Native person in Indian country, right?
- [00:22:03.020]And so again, the Major Crimes Act was passed in 1885.
- [00:22:07.800]As I'm sure you understand,
- [00:22:09.220]the country didn't exactly look like it does now back in 1885
- [00:22:13.040]so that this Major Crimes Act was somewhat akin
- [00:22:16.480]to Congress passing a statute that says,
- [00:22:19.560]we have jurisdiction over Canadian citizens
- [00:22:24.700]who commit crimes against other Canadian citizens in Canada,
- [00:22:29.620]which used to be a more ridiculous example than it is today.
- [00:22:35.700]I guess we won't get into that too much.
- [00:22:39.600]But that's essentially what the Major Crimes Act
- [00:22:42.060]was akin to, right?
- [00:22:43.720]Can Congress pass the statute
- [00:22:45.360]where they just give itself jurisdiction
- [00:22:47.060]over crimes committed by Native peoples
- [00:22:49.800]against other Native peoples on tribal lands?
- [00:22:53.980]Well, there's a couple other ways to think about
- [00:22:55.760]that basic question as well too.
- [00:22:59.200]One of which is, where in the U.S. Constitution
- [00:23:03.260]is the federal government granted this authority
- [00:23:06.540]to reshape tribal sovereignty?
- [00:23:08.740]So I'm sure you have heard by this point
- [00:23:11.080]in your lives that the federal government
- [00:23:13.280]is supposed to be a government of limited
- [00:23:16.000]and enumerated powers, right?
- [00:23:18.400]And so limited, right?
- [00:23:20.340]Not overly expansive that there are boundaries
- [00:23:23.920]to the power that it has, right?
- [00:23:25.960]Limited and then enumerated, which I will confess to you
- [00:23:29.060]that was much later in life than I want to admit
- [00:23:31.880]before I finally looked up the word enumerated, right?
- [00:23:34.780]But it just means spelled out, right?
- [00:23:36.980]Well, where are these limited powers spelled out
- [00:23:39.920]in the constitution itself?
- [00:23:42.460]So where in the constitution does it say
- [00:23:45.660]that the federal government has this authority
- [00:23:47.880]to reshape tribal sovereignty,
- [00:23:51.160]to pass something like the Major Crimes Act, right?
- [00:23:54.460]What authorizes, another way to think about it,
- [00:23:57.460]what authorizes the federal government
- [00:23:59.080]to exercise this plenary power?
- [00:24:02.840]And the poorer lawyers for the feds at that point in time,
- [00:24:06.780]again, in today's moment, this is,
- [00:24:10.520]the example is not as ridiculous as it used to be,
- [00:24:15.600]but the lawyers for the federal government
- [00:24:17.160]had to find something in the constitution
- [00:24:19.160]to try to say, oh, well, this is what gives us the power.
- [00:24:23.140]And so the only thing that they could really come up with
- [00:24:25.920]was the Commerce Clause,
- [00:24:28.860]Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 in the Constitution
- [00:24:31.680]that says Congress has the authority to quote,
- [00:24:34.840]regulate commerce with foreign nations among the states
- [00:24:38.260]and with Indian tribes, right?
- [00:24:40.300]That Congress, thus the federal government
- [00:24:42.300]has the authority to regulate commerce
- [00:24:44.740]with these other entities.
- [00:24:49.080]And the lawyers for the federal, honest to goodness,
- [00:24:51.600]I've read the thing, honest to goodness,
- [00:24:54.300]the lawyers for the federal government argued, right?
- [00:24:56.880]In trying to justify the Commerce Clause
- [00:24:58.980]as the source of authority for the Major Crimes Act,
- [00:25:01.740]they argued in essence,
- [00:25:03.620]well, you know, if we let all of these wild
- [00:25:06.820]and crazy Indians kill each other,
- [00:25:08.940]there will be fewer people with whom to engage in commerce.
- [00:25:12.820]Thus, the Commerce Clause allows us the opportunity
- [00:25:16.200]to pass this criminal law statute.
- [00:25:22.480]So that's the basic argument going in
- [00:25:24.500]from the federal side, right?
- [00:25:25.780]Where in the Constitution Commerce Clause
- [00:25:27.600]can't let them kill each other,
- [00:25:29.340]there are few people to engage in commerce.
- [00:25:32.480]Well, Justice Miller wrote the opinion in Kagama.
- [00:25:36.620]And by the way,
- [00:25:37.180]it totally looks like a guy you want to party with, right?
- [00:25:39.740]Absolutely looks like one of those guys, right?
- [00:25:42.640]Boy, if you want the fate of your people
- [00:25:44.560]in somebody's hands, this is the guy you want, right?
- [00:25:47.420]Okay, anyway, he doesn't really buy
- [00:25:50.480]that Commerce Clause, are you, right?
- [00:25:53.180]So for one thing, as we've mentioned,
- [00:25:55.420]the statute in question was a criminal law statute
- [00:25:57.840]that didn't really have much to do with commerce
- [00:26:00.660]and it's harder to draw a straight line
- [00:26:02.700]despite what the federal government,
- [00:26:04.500]what the lawyers for the federal government
- [00:26:05.680]were trying to argue.
- [00:26:07.640]And in fact, he called the federal government's argument
- [00:26:11.160]a quote, very strained construction of the Commerce Clause.
- [00:26:16.780]All of which is to say, you go and read the case
- [00:26:19.620]and you realize that there is no constitutional basis
- [00:26:24.060]for the statute, right?
- [00:26:26.320]No constitutional basis that the court can identify,
- [00:26:29.280]which means that that should have been the end of the case.
- [00:26:34.480]But this is Indian law,
- [00:26:35.940]which means it was definitely not the end of the case.
- [00:26:41.600]So that Justice Miller goes on to say
- [00:26:44.120]that even though there is no constitutional basis
- [00:26:47.320]for this federal authority,
- [00:26:49.300]the federal government has it anyway.
- [00:26:52.080]Well, okay, how, why?
- [00:26:55.740]Why does the federal government have this authority
- [00:26:57.680]if there's nothing in the constitution
- [00:26:59.440]that says they have this authority?
- [00:27:01.740]Well, as you see, Justice Miller tells us,
- [00:27:04.340]well, it's because Indians are wards, right?
- [00:27:06.680]And again, wards, people who cannot take care of themselves.
- [00:27:09.640]They are weak, they're helpless, they need our protection
- [00:27:13.000]that we have this authority over them
- [00:27:17.820]because they can't take care of themselves.
- [00:27:20.460]Which again, tells you what folks thought
- [00:27:24.560]about Native peoples at this time, right?
- [00:27:27.060]That we're exercising authority
- [00:27:28.940]above and beyond the constitution
- [00:27:30.340]because these people need to be helped, right?
- [00:27:35.920]They're helpless other ones.
- [00:27:38.100]All of which adds up to the federal government
- [00:27:41.620]having plenary power,
- [00:27:43.080]but there's no basis in the constitution
- [00:27:46.200]for that plenary power.
- [00:27:49.020]Okay, that's 1886.
- [00:27:52.440]Well, let's fast forward to 2004.
- [00:27:54.620]And we have a somewhat similar case
- [00:27:56.940]in that we were once again asking whether Congress
- [00:27:59.660]has the authority to pass a statute
- [00:28:01.500]that reshapes tribal sovereignty.
- [00:28:04.160]And in this case, it's a statute called the Duro fix.
- [00:28:08.280]And it was a response to a previous Supreme Court case.
- [00:28:12.000]Basically, it was Congress saying that tribes
- [00:28:15.080]have the authority to criminally prosecute
- [00:28:17.840]non-member Indians, right?
- [00:28:19.860]So a citizen of tribe A commits a crime
- [00:28:22.940]on the land of tribe B.
- [00:28:25.580]Tribe B has the authority to criminally prosecute
- [00:28:28.160]tribal A member, okay?
- [00:28:32.400]So that was the Duro fix.
- [00:28:35.100]And the question in the case was,
- [00:28:36.580]well, can Congress do this, right?
- [00:28:39.020]Can Congress just sort of reshape sovereignty
- [00:28:41.860]in that manner?
- [00:28:43.060]What is the authority to do that come from?
- [00:28:47.300]And so then this time, there's Justice Stephen Breyer,
- [00:28:49.660]by the way, uses too many letters to spell his name, right?
- [00:28:52.140]All you need is a V, right?
- [00:28:54.080]Simplify your life.
- [00:28:55.180]You don't need those extra letters, all right?
- [00:28:57.640]My son's name is Steven.
- [00:28:59.260]You may have noticed him earlier in the presentation.
- [00:29:01.900]You'll see him again.
- [00:29:03.540]You're right.
- [00:29:04.440]You don't need the extra letters, man.
- [00:29:06.360]Okay.
- [00:29:07.440]Anyway, you want to talk about your government waste.
- [00:29:10.780]All right, and nothing with the Duro fix.
- [00:29:12.380]Okay.
- [00:29:13.400]He authored the majority opinion.
- [00:29:15.220]It's not the end of the Duro fix.
- [00:29:16.680]I'm just telling you right now, okay?
- [00:29:18.400]He authored the majority opinion.
- [00:29:28.760]Okay.
- [00:29:29.920]And as with Kagama, once again,
- [00:29:31.480]the Supreme Court does find that Congress
- [00:29:33.260]does have the plenary power authority
- [00:29:37.420]to pass this type of statute, to pass the Duro fix.
- [00:29:41.780]However, this time the court tries to tell us
- [00:29:44.340]that it has traditionally found the authority
- [00:29:49.040]in the Commerce Clause,
- [00:29:51.480]which again, we need to keep in mind,
- [00:29:54.340]was explicitly rejected by the Kagama Court.
- [00:29:57.700]Okay, well, the court said,
- [00:29:58.860]no, the Commerce Clause doesn't work.
- [00:30:01.040]Now, all of a sudden, 2004,
- [00:30:03.260]Supreme Courts say, no, actually,
- [00:30:04.760]the Commerce Clause not only works,
- [00:30:06.160]but this is the one that we've always believed
- [00:30:09.060]authorizes plenary power, right?
- [00:30:12.680]And in fact, according to Breyer,
- [00:30:14.580]this is pretty much the whole purpose
- [00:30:16.300]of the Indian Commerce Clause,
- [00:30:18.400]is to prop up this plenary power.
- [00:30:22.760]So now, the court is telling us something much different
- [00:30:27.620]about this doctrine, right?
- [00:30:29.240]Now, all of a sudden, we're saying that the Constitution
- [00:30:30.880]is the source of plenary power.
- [00:30:34.700]And from all of that,
- [00:30:35.720]we can see that something doesn't add up.
- [00:30:38.520]The court started out by telling us
- [00:30:40.380]that there was no constitutional basis for plenary power.
- [00:30:44.480]But nowadays, in the present,
- [00:30:46.300]the court is trying to tell us
- [00:30:47.420]that it has traditionally found the basis
- [00:30:50.220]for plenary power in the Commerce Clause,
- [00:30:52.580]which leads to one big question.
- [00:30:57.620]When did plenary power become constitutional?
- [00:31:03.320]Now, as you might imagine,
- [00:31:04.440]this is a hard question to answer
- [00:31:05.980]because there are a number of moving parts
- [00:31:07.660]and also because we don't have that single seminal moment
- [00:31:10.780]that we can point to when everything changed.
- [00:31:18.520]Nonetheless, for simplicity's sake,
- [00:31:19.840]we can boil it down to two more or less
- [00:31:22.720]mid-20th century happenings.
- [00:31:24.920]The first thing is that the Commerce Clause
- [00:31:27.680]develops into perhaps the most important part
- [00:31:30.640]of the U.S. Constitution.
- [00:31:32.400]So if you go to law school, I promise you,
- [00:31:35.760]and why would you do that to yourself?
- [00:31:37.660]But if you go to law school, right,
- [00:31:39.980]I promise you in your first year con law class,
- [00:31:43.640]you will spend more time than you can imagine right now
- [00:31:47.940]talking about the Commerce Clause.
- [00:31:50.960]It becomes the big deal in the 20th century
- [00:31:56.620]and how Congress has exercised its authority
- [00:32:00.500]perhaps in the greatest sphere, okay?
- [00:32:04.300]So perhaps the best example to demonstrate
- [00:32:08.300]is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- [00:32:12.820]Now, that statute, right,
- [00:32:15.180]if you've never heard of any congressional statute before,
- [00:32:19.660]you've probably heard of at least the Civil Rights Act
- [00:32:21.780]of 1964.
- [00:32:23.260]That particular statute relies heavily
- [00:32:25.460]on the Commerce Clause and in fact,
- [00:32:27.660]survived challenges under the Commerce Clause
- [00:32:29.500]or challenges to it at the Supreme Court
- [00:32:32.420]shortly after it was passed, right?
- [00:32:34.640]So you have the statute that says,
- [00:32:36.660]well, you know, we're protecting these civil rights
- [00:32:38.840]using the Commerce Clause to do it.
- [00:32:40.800]And the court said, okay, we can go with you there, okay.
- [00:32:45.540]The second happening is that in the Civil Rights Era
- [00:32:49.080]in the mid-20th century,
- [00:32:50.760]the Supreme Court seems to grow increasingly embarrassed
- [00:32:53.460]about its worship and dependency language
- [00:32:56.300]concerning Native peoples
- [00:32:57.980]that it had previously relied upon.
- [00:33:02.160]And we could see these transition
- [00:33:03.720]in two cases that were decided on the same day in 1973.
- [00:33:08.840]So the first case is Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones.
- [00:33:11.920]And it was authored by William O. Douglas.
- [00:33:14.140]So he actually, it was a dissent, right?
- [00:33:16.620]And you look through it and you realize,
- [00:33:18.500]hey, he's still using that same language
- [00:33:20.180]that we saw in Kagama, right?
- [00:33:22.020]The same basic wardship dependency language and rationale.
- [00:33:28.460]Now that being noted, right?
- [00:33:31.040]We should also recognize that William Douglas
- [00:33:33.420]was appointed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1939.
- [00:33:37.860]And he was writing Mescalero,
- [00:33:39.480]this dissent of Mescalero Apache in 1973,
- [00:33:43.120]which was during the second Richard Nixon administration,
- [00:33:46.500]right?
- [00:33:47.240]So you think about that, right?
- [00:33:50.480]The two perspectives,
- [00:33:51.640]one is a pre-World War II/Great Depression, right?
- [00:33:55.640]You think about the, that's when he was appointed
- [00:33:57.920]and now he's writing in the era of Watergate.
- [00:34:01.040]You think about all of American history that happened
- [00:34:03.180]just from the Great Depression to Watergate.
- [00:34:07.220]That's a lot of change,
- [00:34:08.660]a lot of things happening in the country, right?
- [00:34:10.980]And so Douglas represents the old way of doing things,
- [00:34:14.780]the old way of talking about Native peoples,
- [00:34:16.640]the old way of justifying plenary power.
- [00:34:21.020]And it was the way that was being transitioned
- [00:34:22.940]out of in this moment.
- [00:34:26.120]And then the second case from 1973
- [00:34:28.060]was a McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Commission.
- [00:34:31.900]And it was authored by Thurgood Marshall,
- [00:34:34.120]where he tells us perhaps a little euphemistically
- [00:34:38.080]that there was some confusion
- [00:34:40.260]about the source of plenary power.
- [00:34:44.060]However, we both generally recognize,
- [00:34:46.940]nowadays we generally recognize
- [00:34:48.460]that the Constitution is the source of plenary power.
- [00:34:53.220]So what we see here is the new way of doing things,
- [00:34:55.940]the new way of talking about these issues
- [00:34:57.700]is being transitioned into.
- [00:35:01.120]So even though we don't have that singular seminal moment,
- [00:35:04.180]right, if you know of no other Supreme Court case,
- [00:35:07.260]you know of Brown v. Board of Education.
- [00:35:09.400]And part of what makes Brown v. Board of Education
- [00:35:11.920]so famous is because it is a seminal moment.
- [00:35:14.780]It's a moment where the Supreme Court says very clearly
- [00:35:17.440]the law has changed, right?
- [00:35:20.000]It used to be separate but equal from Plessy
- [00:35:22.360]v. Ferguson, but from this point forward,
- [00:35:24.600]it is no longer separate but equal, right?
- [00:35:28.180]We don't have that singular seminal moment
- [00:35:30.380]where the court says, oh yes,
- [00:35:31.880]now we recognize plenary power is being justified
- [00:35:36.180]under the constitution, the one single case.
- [00:35:38.920]We just see this evolving, this changing, right?
- [00:35:44.460]But we have a sense, right?
- [00:35:46.280]Because we know two things were happening.
- [00:35:48.300]All of a sudden the court has the commerce clause
- [00:35:50.140]to lean on, it's become really, really important
- [00:35:52.500]and it gets embarrassed by its previous rhetoric.
- [00:35:56.920]All right, so that's kind of sort of how we understand
- [00:36:00.480]to think about when the change happened.
- [00:36:02.700]But all that perhaps leaves us
- [00:36:04.200]with an even more daunting question.
- [00:36:08.260]Has anything actually really changed?
- [00:36:12.140]Did the Supreme Court really find some sort
- [00:36:15.440]of reasonable rationale that ties plenary power
- [00:36:18.360]to the Constitution, right?
- [00:36:20.580]Did they figure something out here?
- [00:36:23.160]Or is it just a new way to talk about the same thing
- [00:36:27.200]when the old language became too embarrassing to use?
- [00:36:31.960]So let's put it another way.
- [00:36:33.800]Is plenary power a legitimate expression
- [00:36:37.220]of an enumerated constitutional power
- [00:36:39.680]that the Supreme Court was finally able to reason out?
- [00:36:43.680]Or is it the same old racist governmental overreach
- [00:36:47.320]simply hiding behind the constitution?
- [00:36:55.020]Well, let me confess to you that I tend to think
- [00:36:59.060]that only the words around plenary power have changed,
- [00:37:02.420]not the rationale or sentiments about Native people.
- [00:37:06.020]And that's why this is the worst trickster story ever told.
- [00:37:11.320]What the Supreme Court is telling us walks and talks
- [00:37:15.000]and acts like a trickster story.
- [00:37:17.720]It has powerful beings that make important choices.
- [00:37:21.780]It has a magical conjuring
- [00:37:23.540]that brings something new into the world.
- [00:37:27.360]It claims to explain the natural order of things.
- [00:37:32.300]It is essentially the colonizer trying to tell
- [00:37:35.240]its own trickster story,
- [00:37:37.360]but either depending on your perspective,
- [00:37:40.240]failing miserably or completely succeeding.
- [00:37:46.580]So ultimately, this worst trickster story ever told
- [00:37:49.340]is not an act of creation, but an act of destruction, right?
- [00:37:54.440]We talked about plenary power, excuse me,
- [00:37:56.660]how trickster stories are stories of creation.
- [00:37:59.700]This one is not an act, a story of creation is a story of creation.
- [00:38:02.300]A story of destruction.
- [00:38:04.700]It truncates the humanity of Native peoples
- [00:38:07.140]by perpetuating the process of colonization
- [00:38:10.020]under the guise of the law,
- [00:38:12.440]under the guise of the most important legal document
- [00:38:15.420]in the country, right?
- [00:38:17.000]One that's treated with exceptional reverence
- [00:38:19.280]in the United States.
- [00:38:21.440]It encases Native America in a permanent state
- [00:38:24.120]of infilization by claiming that this is the will
- [00:38:26.940]of the colonizer's highest authority.
- [00:38:30.280]And it is not, it is not the colonizer understanding
- [00:38:33.720]and living in harmony with the natural world,
- [00:38:36.340]but rather the colonizer pretending
- [00:38:39.060]that the unequal world that it has created
- [00:38:41.980]is somehow natural and normal.
- [00:38:46.580]So what do we do about it?
- [00:38:47.840]What do we do about the worst trickster story ever told?
- [00:38:51.660]Well, you're just gonna have to read chapter five to find out.
- [00:38:56.620]All right, thank you so much.
- [00:38:57.900]I appreciate you listening to this, thank you.
- [00:39:00.620]Thank you, Dr. Richotte.
- [00:39:03.520]I appreciated every bit of that.
- [00:39:07.600]And thank you for adding some levity
- [00:39:09.340]to the very seriousness of this conversation
- [00:39:12.340]around plenary power.
- [00:39:14.280]You do have some questions already in the chat.
- [00:39:17.780]I'm not gonna take them in order
- [00:39:19.100]because I think one of them picks up
- [00:39:22.300]exactly where you left off
- [00:39:23.620]and then another one asks us to consider a new frame.
- [00:39:27.320]So we'll get to that one in a moment.
- [00:39:28.540]But first, Eric Eisner is asking
- [00:39:30.580]whether you think a reformed plenary power doctrine
- [00:39:34.840]could be good for Native interests.
- [00:39:37.460]And Eric is referencing Maggie Blackhawk's argument
- [00:39:40.560]that perhaps it's better for Native nations
- [00:39:43.120]if plenary power is in Congress
- [00:39:44.680]rather than the States or the judiciary,
- [00:39:46.980]and is also referring back to the Brackeen case
- [00:39:49.740]in which some of the justices suggested
- [00:39:52.540]that plenary power does have limitations
- [00:39:56.460]and that tribal sovereignty cannot be impinged
- [00:39:59.880]by Congress or the judiciary.
- [00:40:03.000]Okay, well, that is a very good question
- [00:40:05.480]and one that I wrestle with in the book
- [00:40:07.460]because let's just start off by noting
- [00:40:10.560]that the Supreme Court has suggested
- [00:40:13.520]that there are limits to plenary power,
- [00:40:15.900]but it has never demonstrated that those limits exist
- [00:40:20.120]or has never, under the guise of plenary power itself,
- [00:40:24.060]said that Congress has overstepped its boundaries.
- [00:40:27.140]It has said it's overstepped its boundaries
- [00:40:29.160]through other parts of the Constitution
- [00:40:31.740]or other circumstances.
- [00:40:33.320]So 1990 case, Florida v. Florida Seminole Tribe,
- [00:40:38.000]it struck down a portion of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
- [00:40:41.040]based on the 11th Amendment,
- [00:40:43.400]not based upon any limitation to plenary power.
- [00:40:47.460]As far as plenary power itself,
- [00:40:49.260]it is, again, there's a suggestion,
- [00:40:51.940]but there's no actual evidence that the court knows of
- [00:40:56.100]or can identify what the limits are.
- [00:40:58.360]But to get to the deeper question,
- [00:41:01.360]one of the things about plenary power
- [00:41:03.420]is that it is a double-edged sword, okay?
- [00:41:06.780]So that plenary power has been to the benefit
- [00:41:10.160]as well as the detriment to Native peoples.
- [00:41:13.600]And we are currently living in a moment
- [00:41:15.260]where it has mostly been to the benefit of Native peoples.
- [00:41:18.960]And so I tend to think that a lot of advocates,
- [00:41:23.420]a lot of people who are interested in this stuff
- [00:41:25.700]and in this field are a little afraid of what would happen
- [00:41:28.820]if there was something other than plenary power
- [00:41:31.400]because we had been living in the moment
- [00:41:33.640]when things are relatively good.
- [00:41:37.480]But the problem is,
- [00:41:39.660]is that plenary power is what it is, right?
- [00:41:42.620]There is that other side to the sword.
- [00:41:45.020]And so people like me who teach federal in the law
- [00:41:47.320]will often describe the different policy eras, right?
- [00:41:50.360]And what I mean by policy era
- [00:41:51.620]is that at different periods in American history,
- [00:41:54.360]the federal government has had different answers
- [00:41:56.440]to the basic question of what do we do
- [00:41:58.880]with all these wild and crazy Indians?
- [00:42:01.180]What do we do about Native America, right?
- [00:42:03.900]And so then folks in my position
- [00:42:06.520]will often describe the different policy eras
- [00:42:09.540]as swinging like a pendulum
- [00:42:11.520]so that we go from these eras
- [00:42:14.480]where the federal government is trying
- [00:42:16.320]to bring Native peoples into the fold, right?
- [00:42:20.320]They're trying to make them more American, more like us,
- [00:42:23.000]whether they want it or not, right?
- [00:42:25.360]Versus these periods of assimilation.
- [00:42:29.420]As opposed to other periods, periods of separatism,
- [00:42:32.740]where the idea is more or less,
- [00:42:34.480]well, we need to leave them alone
- [00:42:35.700]or we need to separate or remove them
- [00:42:37.800]from the larger American polity
- [00:42:39.900]because it's gonna cause problems otherwise.
- [00:42:42.280]So you think about the removal act and removal period.
- [00:42:45.800]That's about the most straightforward
- [00:42:49.180]and dynamic example of one of these types of policy eras.
- [00:42:54.660]And it swings back and forth.
- [00:42:58.740]So if history is our guide, right?
- [00:43:03.760]Because we're living in an era
- [00:43:05.380]where things are relatively good right now, right?
- [00:43:09.660]Things are likely to change at some time in the future.
- [00:43:13.100]And who knows?
- [00:43:14.660]We might be engaging in a moment of change right now.
- [00:43:19.260]All of which means that just
- [00:43:21.100]because plenary power is good now does not mean
- [00:43:24.460]that it will always be used to the good in the future.
- [00:43:28.160]And in fact, over the course
- [00:43:29.760]of the history of the United States,
- [00:43:31.780]it has been used more to the detriment
- [00:43:34.220]of Native peoples than it has to the benefit.
- [00:43:37.180]So that even in a moment like this,
- [00:43:39.200]even if you could try to massage plenary power
- [00:43:41.560]in different sorts of ways,
- [00:43:43.680]it's still what it is at its very nature,
- [00:43:46.860]which is a doctrine that is rooted in the idea
- [00:43:49.780]or understanding that Native peoples are inferior
- [00:43:52.200]and that the federal government needs
- [00:43:54.500]this extensive authority over them.
- [00:43:57.800]Which means that you're always playing with fire
- [00:44:02.660]with this doctrine.
- [00:44:04.300]And it also means that if things are ever really,
- [00:44:07.000]truly going to get any better,
- [00:44:08.360]you need an alternative to plenary power.
- [00:44:11.840]You need a different way to think about
- [00:44:13.200]what the relationship is and could and should be
- [00:44:16.480]between the federal government and Native America.
- [00:44:19.840]And that's what chapter five is about.
- [00:44:25.280]I think-
- [00:44:25.500]Did I answer the full question?
- [00:44:27.120]I think you did.
- [00:44:27.940]In fact, you also answered another question
- [00:44:29.660]that had come up from one of our students
- [00:44:32.980]about whether you believe plenary power
- [00:44:35.220]should still be the guiding principle
- [00:44:36.780]in federal Indian law today, why or why not.
- [00:44:39.140]And so I think you've definitely covered some of that.
- [00:44:43.720]We have a question about a specific case,
- [00:44:46.400]but before I turn to that,
- [00:44:47.820]I wanna get back to an earlier question
- [00:44:50.280]that sort of takes plenary power
- [00:44:53.120]beyond federal Indian law and asks about the role
- [00:44:57.360]or development of immigration law in plenary power
- [00:45:00.320]and how that overlaps with federal Indian law
- [00:45:03.420]or Native nations experience with plenary power.
- [00:45:06.800]I know for folks who work with the insular cases
- [00:45:09.580]that this is also a question.
- [00:45:12.880]And it's one of those areas where scholars with expertise
- [00:45:16.920]in one particular area are definitely in communication
- [00:45:20.080]and dialogue with one another.
- [00:45:23.480]So happy to hear any thoughts you have about that overlap.
- [00:45:25.660]Well, absolutely.
- [00:45:27.000]And it is overlap
- [00:45:30.060]and perhaps the best way to answer that.
- [00:45:34.760]And I think it's chapter two, chapter three.
- [00:45:39.040]I don't know why, whatever, just read the book, right?
- [00:45:42.740]But plenary power in these other spaces, right?
- [00:45:47.760]With immigration or the law of the territories
- [00:45:49.680]or the insular cases, right?
- [00:45:51.660]They're all born in the same moment, right?
- [00:45:54.540]They're all born in the late 19th, early 20th century
- [00:45:57.140]when the federal government and the Supreme Court
- [00:46:00.060]is essentially wrestling, right?
- [00:46:01.860]It's a moment of American imperialism
- [00:46:04.740]and expansionism, right?
- [00:46:05.940]When the United States is growing rapidly
- [00:46:07.680]and not just on this continent,
- [00:46:09.440]but it's beginning to imagine what life would look like
- [00:46:12.880]if it were one of the colonizing powers as well too, right?
- [00:46:17.540]If it stepped into the role of an England or a France
- [00:46:19.780]or a Spain and expanded its territory across the globe.
- [00:46:23.820]And so we see the United States doing that, right?
- [00:46:27.540]And so then we get the insular cases.
- [00:46:30.700]We get it through immigration,
- [00:46:33.200]mostly through the Chinese exclusion cases, right?
- [00:46:36.720]And it's all in this late 19th, early 20th century
- [00:46:38.960]when this is happening,
- [00:46:39.820]when the federal government is trying to figure out
- [00:46:42.620]what do we do with all these non-white people, right?
- [00:46:45.960]We want the land, we want the territory,
- [00:46:48.720]we want to expand.
- [00:46:52.340]We want the labor.
- [00:46:53.840]Yeah, we want the labor, but we don't want the people, right?
- [00:46:59.380]We don't want the actual human beings
- [00:47:01.780]who we understand as different and inferior
- [00:47:05.980]and so on and so forth.
- [00:47:07.920]So it's all rooted,
- [00:47:11.660]it's all born of the same moment,
- [00:47:13.580]rooted in the same understandings
- [00:47:15.420]of how to manage a supposedly inferior group of peoples
- [00:47:19.740]and how to express,
- [00:47:22.080]how to legitimize the efforts
- [00:47:27.120]to minimize and exclude those peoples
- [00:47:31.320]in this particular moment.
- [00:47:33.360]So plenary power has been
- [00:47:36.140]and needs to be questioned in these other areas as well too.
- [00:47:40.320]But it's really just the same thing
- [00:47:42.000]coming out of the same set of questions.
- [00:47:44.220]What do we do with these non-white peoples
- [00:47:46.120]who happen to be in these spaces
- [00:47:48.260]that we also want to have control over
- [00:47:50.520]and that we want to have access to the resources of?
- [00:47:58.490]Thank you.
- [00:48:00.990]I'm pretty sure it's chapter three.
- [00:48:02.530]I'm just gonna put that out there.
- [00:48:05.210]And I love that your book is anticipating
- [00:48:06.970]the kind of questions that come from an audience.
- [00:48:09.170]It tells me that a lot of our guests today
- [00:48:12.110]would be really interested in the book.
- [00:48:15.430]Well, luckily I'm very smart and a very good writer.
- [00:48:17.850]So you should totally, totally read this book.
- [00:48:20.810]And not at all humble.
- [00:48:22.850]Definitely, well, let's not get too crazy, right?
- [00:48:26.630]Let's not, yeah.
- [00:48:28.930]Well, there's a joke in there about the distinction
- [00:48:32.290]between the JD track, right?
- [00:48:34.430]And the graduate track.
- [00:48:36.310]So you have all of those credentials as an arsenal.
- [00:48:40.670]I also have a question here about a specific case
- [00:48:43.330]from Dr. Berger here at UNL.
- [00:48:47.550]And he says he's been working on the case of Yellow Sun
- [00:48:51.010]et al. v. the United States,
- [00:48:53.710]which is a Nebraska case decided by Judge Dundy,
- [00:48:57.250]familiar to some of the members of the audience
- [00:48:59.930]because of his involvement also in the Standing Bear case
- [00:49:02.410]and his choice to reject the case of John Elk.
- [00:49:06.730]That would become Elk v. Wilkins.
- [00:49:08.470]So he's quite notorious here in Nebraska.
- [00:49:12.670]Dr. Berger says he's ordered your book,
- [00:49:14.490]but he hasn't gotten it yet and he's impatient.
- [00:49:16.630]He wants to know if that's a case that you've considered
- [00:49:19.190]or if you have any thoughts.
- [00:49:23.910]Well, I don't believe that I've referenced that case
- [00:49:26.710]specifically.
- [00:49:28.510]I mean, John Elk, the Elk v. Wilkins case
- [00:49:32.710]is part of the conversation, but not necessarily central
- [00:49:36.890]in the sense that you'll be reading about it a lot
- [00:49:42.490]during the course of this particular book.
- [00:49:44.790]So I don't have a lot necessarily about that specific case,
- [00:49:48.970]but for those who are familiar,
- [00:49:51.710]Elk v. Wilkins was a case about whether or not
- [00:49:54.150]the 14th Amendment applied to Native peoples.
- [00:49:57.930]And it's funny because Elk v. Wilkins was, of course,
- [00:50:03.890]recently in the news, recently,
- [00:50:05.750]because it was used to some extent by federal lawyers
- [00:50:10.930]to try to justify the executive order
- [00:50:13.410]that sought to end birthright citizenship.
- [00:50:17.630]And so the idea was, well, if the 14th Amendment
- [00:50:20.310]doesn't apply to Native peoples,
- [00:50:23.130]it doesn't mean that it automatically applies to everybody.
- [00:50:26.710]Now, having said all that, let me also be very clear
- [00:50:29.550]that Native peoples are citizens.
- [00:50:32.030]There was a 1924, the United States passed
- [00:50:35.390]the Indian Citizenship Act
- [00:50:36.590]that made Native peoples all citizens.
- [00:50:38.950]And it was actually understood as a piece of legislation
- [00:50:43.370]that sought to clean up those folks who had been left out
- [00:50:47.970]because it was estimated that through various mechanisms,
- [00:50:51.050]two thirds of Native peoples
- [00:50:52.290]were already citizens before that, right?
- [00:50:54.790]That's a little aside that I don't wanna get people
- [00:50:57.190]worked up about, wait, Native peoples aren't citizens?
- [00:50:59.870]No, they are U.S. citizens.
- [00:51:02.450]Whether they want to be or not,
- [00:51:03.590]that's another conversation for a different time.
- [00:51:07.130]But the 14th Amendment was, of course,
- [00:51:12.350]one of the civil rights amendments.
- [00:51:14.990]And famous is not the right word
- [00:51:20.370]because, but well-known in people in my circles,
- [00:51:24.230]I hope well-known in people in my circles,
- [00:51:26.610]a congressional report about the application
- [00:51:29.990]of the 14th Amendment to Native peoples.
- [00:51:33.310]And that report said, ultimately concluded
- [00:51:36.830]that Native peoples were not citizens
- [00:51:40.270]under the auspices of the 14th Amendment
- [00:51:42.450]and expressed deep regret for the events
- [00:51:49.470]that happened with Native peoples, right?
- [00:51:51.770]So there's a line in there about,
- [00:51:53.550]well, I'm not sure that the folks
- [00:51:56.650]who call themselves Christians were really acting
- [00:52:00.250]in that manner in previous generations
- [00:52:03.250]and engaging with Native peoples,
- [00:52:04.690]but there's nothing we could do about it now, right?
- [00:52:08.050]And so it's so interesting to read the Senate report
- [00:52:10.890]or congressional report saying,
- [00:52:13.170]look, there's nothing that we can do
- [00:52:15.450]about the centuries-old effects of colonialism
- [00:52:19.570]for Native peoples in our particular moment.
- [00:52:22.930]In a Senate report for a civil rights amendment
- [00:52:26.410]that was seeking to redress the wrongs
- [00:52:29.290]of the centuries-old issue of slavery, right?
- [00:52:34.130]So I have no desire or intention
- [00:52:37.690]to compare the plights of different peoples.
- [00:52:42.630]Sometimes people in these public settings
- [00:52:44.870]will ask me, well, who's had it worse?
- [00:52:47.330]Blacks or Indians?
- [00:52:48.110]And the answer is yes, right?
- [00:52:49.530]The answer is just yes, right?
- [00:52:51.150]The real question is not who's had it worse.
- [00:52:53.350]The real question is, why do you wanna know?
- [00:52:55.550]What do you think that information will actually do for you?
- [00:52:58.730]What are you gonna accomplish with that?
- [00:53:01.990]So this is not to suggest that some people have had it worse
- [00:53:05.850]or some people haven't,
- [00:53:06.890]it is just to acknowledge that there is some irony
- [00:53:10.870]in the federal government making claims
- [00:53:13.070]to not being able to correct the centuries-old issues
- [00:53:17.830]that affected Native peoples
- [00:53:19.990]while very deliberately trying
- [00:53:22.210]to address the century-old issues
- [00:53:25.090]that affected enslaved folks.
- [00:53:29.010]And so-
- [00:53:31.010]That's something we've talked about in class
- [00:53:33.270]because the goal of History 340,
- [00:53:37.910]which is rights and wrongs in American legal history
- [00:53:40.890]is to sort of explain from the founding to the present
- [00:53:44.270]the paths that various groups have taken
- [00:53:47.330]to seek expanded civil rights
- [00:53:50.590]and then their experiences in facing particular barriers.
- [00:53:55.130]And also noting what might have been
- [00:53:57.190]the strategies behind particular successes.
- [00:53:59.790]And that naturally invites some comparison
- [00:54:02.030]across different groups throughout U.S. history
- [00:54:05.550]who have had this journey.
- [00:54:08.830]And of course, you're bringing it up
- [00:54:10.530]in the context of the 14th Amendment,
- [00:54:12.470]but I think it's also coming up today
- [00:54:14.530]in terms of the advances against diversity, equity
- [00:54:18.750]and inclusion that are targeting an assumption
- [00:54:23.590]that there are sort of latent race-based policies
- [00:54:26.590]that are being pursued in education at the K through 12 level
- [00:54:30.870]as well as in the higher education level.
- [00:54:33.710]And while that's a concern for everyone
- [00:54:35.850]who is both a student and an educator,
- [00:54:39.670]it's also a concern I think for tribal nations
- [00:54:43.470]who have educational programs
- [00:54:45.370]that come out of this historic treaty-based
- [00:54:49.150]and political status that they hold.
- [00:54:53.010]And those programs can be mischaracterized
- [00:54:56.630]as race-based programs, right?
- [00:54:59.030]And so that's creating this conversation
- [00:55:00.970]and some confusion today about
- [00:55:04.410]whether a land-grant institution, for instance,
- [00:55:07.050]can have a tribal education program
- [00:55:09.750]and whether that is a race-based or exclusive program.
- [00:55:13.670]And I think it is very much related
- [00:55:15.390]to this 14th Amendment era parsing of particular groups
- [00:55:19.850]having a different character of citizenship, right?
- [00:55:24.610]And you've brought that up in other cases
- [00:55:26.090]in your presentation this morning.
- [00:55:27.770]So again, I think there's so much of your work
- [00:55:30.310]that both pulls from the 19th century,
- [00:55:33.590]but is absolutely active and dynamic today in 2025.
- [00:55:38.410]So I just wanna thank you for helping everybody
- [00:55:40.190]make some of those connections.
- [00:55:42.890]Oh, thank you so much.
- [00:55:45.890]Wanna make sure our audience knows
- [00:55:47.390]that we have a little bit more time here,
- [00:55:49.350]if there are any other questions.
- [00:55:51.570]You are, Dr. Richotte, getting a lot of gratitude
- [00:55:54.030]in the chat for sharing your expertise with us this morning.
- [00:55:57.630]Oh, I should read it, shouldn't I?
- [00:55:59.390]We can share it with you afterwards
- [00:56:01.670]since I know you're busy.
- [00:56:03.230]Presenting and don't have time to read through everything.
- [00:56:05.770]But one point that I wanted to ask is,
- [00:56:09.470]given your extensive work within tribal courts themselves,
- [00:56:15.350]can you talk about anything that you've seen
- [00:56:18.190]as a strategy or a trend where tribal nations
- [00:56:22.830]have been able to sort of assert their statutory domain,
- [00:56:29.650]their jurisdiction, their interests
- [00:56:32.310]in defiance of plenary power,
- [00:56:34.970]whether that's coming from a state or a federal perspective,
- [00:56:38.290]is there just something maybe from your work
- [00:56:40.730]in those courts that you have seen
- [00:56:42.930]that you would wanna share with our audience?
- [00:56:44.590]A lot of our audience aren't very familiar
- [00:56:46.230]with tribal courts.
- [00:56:48.050]And so that could be a unique opportunity
- [00:56:49.890]for them to hear from your perspective.
- [00:56:52.310]Well, certainly.
- [00:56:55.810]So first thing that I'll say is that the tribal courts
- [00:56:59.330]that I've worked with, the most of them that I've seen,
- [00:57:02.690]tend to operate a lot like
- [00:57:05.850]your smaller rural state courts operate, right?
- [00:57:10.530]So there's not a whole heck of a lot of difference
- [00:57:12.450]in that sense that you have to file your case,
- [00:57:15.970]there are rules of procedure, so on and so forth.
- [00:57:19.030]And there are other opportunities
- [00:57:21.290]that tribes engage in adjudication
- [00:57:25.960]in different sorts of ways as well too.
- [00:57:27.960]So there are things like peacemaker courts,
- [00:57:29.520]and we could talk about that a little bit later,
- [00:57:32.380]but anybody who would walk
- [00:57:35.720]into your typical tribal courthouse
- [00:57:37.600]is not going to necessarily feel like they're out of place
- [00:57:42.000]if they have some familiarity with, again,
- [00:57:45.440]like a typical rural state court system.
- [00:57:49.300]And so the first thing to sort of note is that
- [00:57:54.220]we tend to want to put things in these binaries, right?
- [00:57:59.200]Native, non-Native.
- [00:58:00.780]And we don't always appreciate
- [00:58:04.740]that there's been some bleeding and blending of the two
- [00:58:06.640]there, which leads to a lot of,
- [00:58:09.060]which can lead to a lot of confusion
- [00:58:11.140]and can lead to a lot of assumptions as well.
- [00:58:15.860]Assumptions that, to be honest about it,
- [00:58:18.140]Supreme Court justices make as well too, right?
- [00:58:21.260]So the first thing to note is that these tribal courts
- [00:58:23.840]aren't necessarily different
- [00:58:25.080]from what you would see otherwise.
- [00:58:27.680]And the reason for articulating that
- [00:58:32.560]is to assuage people who have perhaps certain notions
- [00:58:38.180]about just how different it must be or is or what have you.
- [00:58:42.020]But to really more address your question,
- [00:58:47.020]the thing that tribal courts that I've seen
- [00:58:51.660]that they do that I find particularly encouraging
- [00:58:57.540]is that with the way that jurisdiction works
- [00:59:01.280]and with the way that the federal government
- [00:59:03.480]has created certain impositions upon tribal courts,
- [00:59:08.280]it creates a more limited space for jurisdiction, okay?
- [00:59:14.600]And if you want to know more about what I mean by that,
- [00:59:19.680]come on down to the University of Arizona, right?
- [00:59:22.340]Take some classes,
- [00:59:23.280]cause it's gonna take a full class to really get into that.
- [00:59:28.200]But the tribal courts are more limited
- [00:59:30.120]because of what the federal government has done.
- [00:59:33.000]So that what is encouraging is that a lot of tribes
- [00:59:37.340]have been looking inward for sources of law
- [00:59:40.400]and have been looking more toward what their law is
- [00:59:48.800]and says and does as opposed to the circumstances
- [00:59:55.400]opposed upon them by the federal government.
- [00:59:58.480]So for example, in 1968, Congress passed
- [01:00:03.440]what's called the Indian Civil Rights Act,
- [01:00:05.680]which imposed many of the same restrictions
- [01:00:08.420]of the Bill of Rights upon tribal governments.
- [01:00:13.620]Well, tribes are because of the nature
- [01:00:16.360]and structure of the law
- [01:00:20.400]but will often justify the rights under
- [01:00:23.540]the same sorts of rights
- [01:00:25.440]imposed by the Indian Civil Rights Act
- [01:00:27.740]under their own law, their own constitution,
- [01:00:30.660]their own common law, right?
- [01:00:32.660]And so if you know anything about the development
- [01:00:36.000]of American law, you know,
- [01:00:37.220]it's based largely on English common law.
- [01:00:41.400]Common law is just best described perhaps
- [01:00:44.240]as judge made law, right?
- [01:00:45.840]The idea was that judges would decide cases
- [01:00:49.760]and over the course of time,
- [01:00:52.080]some judges would get it wrong
- [01:00:53.700]but some judges would get it right
- [01:00:55.020]in that the more and more thinking and development
- [01:00:57.240]of a particular legal issue,
- [01:00:59.680]eventually the correct legal principle
- [01:01:01.820]would reveal itself, right?
- [01:01:03.940]And so then the common law is just judges making decision
- [01:01:07.120]after decision until there's something of a consensus
- [01:01:09.760]of what the law should be.
- [01:01:11.960]And it's not the statutes or the codification
- [01:01:15.840]that we think of law being, you know,
- [01:01:18.240]you go into a law library and you see these giant stacks
- [01:01:20.560]of books full of laws and stuff like that.
- [01:01:23.040]That's not the common law
- [01:01:24.520]although those are based on a common law.
- [01:01:27.220]Well, this long winded answer is to get to the point
- [01:01:30.640]that tribes have had a decision-making process
- [01:01:34.740]and had things that can be identified
- [01:01:36.400]as common law as well too, right?
- [01:01:38.600]That people made decisions
- [01:01:39.640]and came to certain understandings
- [01:01:41.880]about the way things should be over the course of time
- [01:01:44.780]and a certain consensus developed.
- [01:01:47.840]And more and more tribal courts are trying to rely
- [01:01:50.140]upon that understanding as well too.
- [01:01:53.420]Now, it wasn't necessarily expressed in the same way,
- [01:01:56.640]very much wasn't expressed always in the same way
- [01:01:59.600]in the Native context
- [01:02:00.840]as it was in the Western common law context.
- [01:02:04.720]But there's a history and there's a tradition there
- [01:02:07.840]that more and more tribal courts are looking toward.
- [01:02:10.400]And they're also looking toward their own treaty rights
- [01:02:13.320]and doing a lot to interpret their own treaty rights
- [01:02:17.660]in a way that doesn't necessarily just leave it up
- [01:02:23.540]to the federal government to make certain decisions
- [01:02:25.420]about what this treaty is or what it says
- [01:02:28.960]or what it does, right?
- [01:02:30.700]And that's a really encouraging space
- [01:02:32.820]to think about the development
- [01:02:36.540]of this particular area of law.
- [01:02:40.780]Thank you.
- [01:02:41.200]I think that's where we'll close it.
- [01:02:43.080]It is promising to hear that you're working with nations
- [01:02:47.880]and that at University of Arizona,
- [01:02:49.780]the Indigenous People's Law program is also working
- [01:02:52.700]with tribal nations to both consider internally
- [01:02:56.860]what their historic legal practices have been outside
- [01:03:01.240]of those defined by the United States.
- [01:03:03.520]And then also thinking about novel legal practices
- [01:03:07.780]that serve their communities.
- [01:03:10.480]I do want to just reiterate for our own students
- [01:03:13.400]that Dr. Richotte and others are part of a pretty vast network
- [01:03:18.260]of legal scholars working in that area.
- [01:03:21.200]And so for those of you considering law school
- [01:03:22.940]or graduate school, that is a very dynamic and rich field.
- [01:03:27.020]Hey, come on down to Arizona.
- [01:03:28.680]You want to learn Indian law?
- [01:03:29.760]No better place.
- [01:03:30.420]Come on down.
- [01:03:33.520]And there are, again, I'll just say diplomatically,
- [01:03:35.960]many choices, though, as someone who-
- [01:03:38.560]I don't think so, but whatever.
- [01:03:39.940]And an MA from the University of Arizona,
- [01:03:41.740]clearly I have also shared Dr. Richotte's opinion about that.
- [01:03:45.740]But in any case, we're really grateful for your time.
- [01:03:49.180]Thanks to everybody who joined us this morning.
- [01:03:51.520]And we will see you again soon
- [01:03:53.720]and update you with further
- [01:03:55.420]U.S. Law and Race Initiative programming.
- [01:03:58.280]Thanks again, take care.
- [01:03:59.700]Thank you so much.
The screen size you are trying to search captions on is too small!
You can always jump over to MediaHub and check it out there.
- Tags:
- law
- history
- u.s. history
- native americans
- native american history
- supreme court
- legal history
- webinar
- race
Log in to post comments
Embed
Copy the following code into your page
HTML
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%; overflow: hidden; position:relative; -webkit-box-flex: 1; flex-grow: 1;">
<iframe
style="bottom: 0; left: 0; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; border: 0; height: 100%; width: 100%;"
src="https://mediahub.unl.edu/media/24298?format=iframe&autoplay=0"
title="Video Player: The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told: Native America, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution"
allowfullscreen
></iframe>
</div>
Comments
0 Comments