Tribal advocates are closely analyzing the potential impact of a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling dealing with state investigations of certain crimes on reservations. A common sentiment is that the protected rights of Native Americans are being chipped away.

The Supreme Court case stemmed from Oklahoma, about whether the state can prosecute non-Native Americans for crimes committed against an Indigenous person on tribal land. In a five-to-four decision, the court sided with the state.

Melody McCoy - staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund - said while it's a complex matter, it's a clear blow to tribal sovereignty.

"It's an unauthorized and unconsented intrusion," said McCoy, "of state authority within Indian country."

McCoy said how it affects future investigations depends on the motivations of each state. But she said the ball is now in hands of tribal governments, and whether they want to appeal to Congress.

South Dakota, which has nine federally recognized tribes, has optioned for at least some jurisdiction under a 1953 law that gave certain states power to prosecute crimes on tribal lands.

McCoy said in theory, adding more resources to an investigation isn't always a bad thing. But she noted that in these situations, there are culturally sensitive matters that tribal and federal authorities are often better equipped to handle.

"Not everything is cut and dry," said McCoy, "and you're dealing with vulnerable populations."

Other tribal advocates worry that state investigators might not carry out a thorough investigation if a non-Native comes to a reservation and commits a crime. They also worry about the court's interpretation expanding to other areas, such as environmental regulation.

In issuing its opinion, the court majority argued that a state has jurisdiction over all the areas within its borders.

A North Dakota Senate committee hears a bill this week which would enshrine protections for Native American children who have to be placed in foster or adoptive homes.

The proposal comes ahead of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling expected later this year involving the long-standing Indian Child Welfare Act. It sets standards for giving preference to extended family or tribal members.

Rep. Jayme Davis, D-Rolette, an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa and the bill's sponsor, said North Dakota needs to act in case the court overturns the federal law, creating dilemmas for Native families and the state agencies handling their cases.

"My worry is that the agencies will be asking, 'Well, what do we do now?' And I don't want to have to wait two years to be able to codify anything again," Davis emphasized.

She is referring to North Dakota's legislative timeline, with regular sessions held every other year. There is no stated opposition to Davis' bill, but a lot of language was removed before it cleared the House. She hopes the Senate advances the full plan, including a study of the issue. Several other states have taken similar action.

Sharnell Seaboy, field organizer for the group North Dakota Native Vote, said removing a Native child from their home and placing them with a non-Native family can be a traumatic experience with lasting impacts, because they are no longer surrounded by their cultural and spiritual traditions.

"You are lost, and you're trying to figure out where you belong, or you know, trying to figure out where you come from," Seaboy explained.

Seaboy noted on a personal level, federal law benefited her family because she was asked to become a caregiver for a newborn last fall.

"I feel because of ICWA, they went deeper down the family tree and came across me," Seaboy noted. "Now I have my little guy, and he's just a little blessing."

South Dakota is home to one of the nation's largest American Indian reservations, and the area is part of a movement among tribal nations to take back control of their food systems. That includes bison restoration. This effort is among the latest food sovereignty initiatives led by the Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation, a nonprofit serving
Lakota people in the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Chance Weston, food sovereignty director, Thunder Valley Community Development Corp., said the emerging plan involves managing bison through regenerative agriculture, which centers around maintaining soil health and integrating the surrounding ecosystem.

"So, it's one thing to run buffalo in an ag operation, but also, it's quite another to take on such another level in terms of, 'How are we restoring the soil?," he said "How are we restoring the relationships that were in there?'"

Those relationships include connections bison have long had with prairie dogs. These approaches harken back to land management carried out by Lakota ancestors. Thunder Valley's programs are viewed as a way to address barriers for Pine Ridge communities in accessing healthy foods. As for bison, Weston said there are still hoops to jump through, including adding local processors.

Weston added a key component of their practices involves demonstrating them to younger populations so they can carry on the food sovereignty movement.

"We wanna see this huge new wave of new producers and growers that have this newfound knowledge," Weston added.

He suggested it is a blend of learning techniques from a scientific standpoint, while also seeing how previous generations developed food and land management systems. Earlier this month, the Interior Department announced $25 million dollars from the Inflation Reduction Act will go toward promoting bison conservation, including supporting bison transfers to tribal nations.

Leaders of the Wabanaki Nations are asking Maine lawmakers to recognize tribal sovereignty and help ensure a better economic future for their youth.

Research shows the five Wabanaki tribes could be an economic engine for large parts of rural Maine, but restrictions set in the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 ensure the tribes are governed under state law.

The tribes are also not guaranteed access to federal programs like the other 574 federally recognized tribes in the U.S.

Richard Silliboy, vice-chief of the Mi'kmaq Tribe, said self-governance would bring jobs and growth to one of the nation's poorest areas.

"This wouldn't just benefit the Native Americans," Silliboy contended. "This would benefit the surrounding communities. This would benefit the state of Maine as a whole."

Silliboy pointed out Wabanaki tribes would benefit from available federal dollars, helping them to create local farming and mill jobs, or extend hours at a fishery that once fed diners in Portland. A growing bipartisan effort is backing legislation to avoid a veto by Gov. Janet Mills, who has long opposed tribal sovereignty over concerns for land use and potential litigation.

Research shows the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act is perpetuating "poverty and dependence" among the Wabanaki, and missed economic growth for all of Maine.

Silliboy added the Wabanaki nations, like communities everywhere, face challenges with drug use. He noted self-governance would help ensure medical treatment for those in need and a job to help their recovery.

"We'd like to employ everybody instead of having them go to the soup kitchen or the food bank," Silliboy stressed. "That's where it is today."

It was a historic Statehouse gathering of the five Wabanaki Nations' chiefs last week, and the first "State of the Tribes" address in two decades, with speeches focused on self-determination and economic collaboration with the state. Mills did not attend.


get more stories like this via email