The Renaissance of Tribal Sovereignty, the Negative Doctrinal Feedback Loop, and the Rise of a New Exceptionalism


Sarah Krakoff

Responding to Philip P. Frickey, (Native) American Exceptionalism in Federal Public Law , 119 Harv. L. Rev. 431 (2005)

In (Native) American Exceptionalism in Federal Public Law, Professor Frickey elegantly describes recent trends in federal Indian law, and makes a convincing case for the exceptionalism of the field. Professor Frickey’s searching analysis of the Justices’ various opinions in United States v. Lara, and the ways in which these opinions highlight the “constitutional crisis” lurking in federal Indian law, is deep and apt. I also agree with his prescription that the Court should resist the “seduction of coherence.” Cleaning up Indian law in the ways portended by Justices Kennedy or Souter, and in at least one of the ways suggested by Justice Thomas, in their respective Lara opinions would do harm to a range of jurisprudential and normative commitments. Professor Frickey canvasses these commitments thoroughly, and there is no need to paraphrase his points.

Instead, I want to sketch out, in an introductory fashion, an idea about why members of the current Court, who otherwise share relatively little in terms of their jurisprudential or political leanings, appear to be so readily seduced by the same siren. If we accept Professor Frickey’s damning critique of the Court’s behavior in federal Indian law, as I think we should, how do we explain that behavior? This short Reply to Professor Frickey’s article suggests that the Court lacks an appropriate and realistic vision of American Indian tribes as sovereigns in the modern context. Presented with several fairly unexceptional instances of tribes acting as sovereign governments, the Court has created a new American Indian law exceptionalism in recent years, adopting rationales to reject exercises of tribal power on grounds that are inconsistent with doctrinal and interpretive norms in other fields of law. This suggestion is not at odds with Professor Frickey’s observations that the Court is abandoning the previous form of Indian law exceptionalism in favor of apparent coherence. To the contrary, the Court’s new exceptionalism merely highlights that the Justices are not, and cannot be, successful at integrating federal Indian law into other fields. The Court lurches towards norms that appear to smooth over American Indian law’s frayed edges, only to tear holes in doctrinal and interpretive fabric elsewhere.



119 Harv. L. Rev. F. 47 (2005) | DOWNLOAD PDF

Online Forum

Should Antitrust Condemn Tying Arrangements that Increase Price Without Restraining Competition?

Steven Semeraro :: In his article Tying, Bundled Discounts, and the Death of the Single Monopoly Profit Theory, Professor Einer Elhauge attempted to demonstrate that tying, the practice whereby a firm conditions the sale of one product on the customer’s agreement to purchase another, always harms consumers. He determined that antitrust law should prohibit tying even when that tying did not restrain competition in the tied product’s market. In this response, Professor Steven Semeraro argues that this form of tying actually benefits consumers in the long term. READ MORE

Disappearing Neighbors

David D. Troutt :: In his article Mobile Capital, Local Economic Regulation, and the Democratic City, Professor Richard C. Schragger explored the consequences of local governments’ attempts to entice — and then exploit — mobile capital. He concluded that cities possess, but must not abuse, the power to assert democratic control over capital flow. In this response, Professor David D. Troutt argues that current foreclosure crisis demonstrates the weakness of cities in relation to mobile capital. READ MORE

Freeing Employee Choice: The Case For Secrecy in Union Organizing and Voting

Cynthia Estlund :: In his article Enabling Employee Choice, Professor Benjamin Sachs provided a nuanced analysis of what is wrong both with current law and with the leading reform proposal. In this response, Professor Cynthia Estlund argues that Professor Sachs’s reform proposal is likely to set the terms for future scholarly analysis and for serious public debate over the role of law in union organizing regardless of the fate of labor law reform in the current Congress. READ MORE

FORUM ARCHIVE


Harvard Law Review
Gannett House
1511 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138

Editorial Office:
617-495-7889
617-496-5053 (fax)

Business Office:
617-495-4650
617-495-2748 (fax)