restricted access Chapter 14 State-Tribal Cooperative Agreements
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

130 2011 Supplement—American Indian Law Deskbook, Fourth Edition 130 P.622, n.10. Add the following to line 2 of the footnote after “see also”: N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 11-18-1 to -5 (State-Tribal Collaboration Act adopted in 2009 and requiring New Mexico state agencies to establish policies and appoint tribal liaisons to promote effective communication and collaboration between that state agencies and tribes; providing for training and an annual summit); P.624, n.16. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “See, e.g.,”: Memphis Biofuels, LLC v. Chickasaw Nation Indus., Inc., 585 F.3d 917, 920 (6th Cir. 2009) (suit against tribal corporation dismissed, despite contractual provision expressly waiving corporation’s sovereign immunity, because required tribal board approval had not been obtained); P.624, n.17. Add the following to the second-to-last line of the footnote after “see generally”: Brian Pierson, Resolving A Perilous Uncertainty: The Right of Tribes to Convey Fee Simple Lands, 57-APR Fed. Law. 49 (2010) (discussing whether Nonintercourse Act constraints on alienability apply to transfers of land held in fee by tribes); P.632. Add the following new footnote 59.1 to the end of the first sentence in the first full paragraph of the text: 59.1 See generally Marren Sanders, Ecosystem Co-Management Agreements: A Study of Nation Building or a Lesson on an Erosion of Tribal Sovereignty?, 15 Buff. Envtl. L.J. 97, 132–163 (2007–2008) (providing case studies of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish and Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commissions and the Nez Perce gray wolf management program, together with related inter-sovereign agreements); Angelique EagleWoman, Tribal Hunting and Fishing Lifeways and Tribal-State Relations in Idaho, 46 Idaho L. Rev. 81, Chapter 14 State-Tribal Cooperative Agreements 131 State-Tribal Cooperative Agreements 115–16 (2009) (discussing wildlife agreements between tribes and the State of Idaho). P.633, n. 64. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; Amanda M. Murphy, A Tale of Three Sovereigns: The Nebulous Boundaries of the Federal Government, New York State, and the Seneca Nation of Indians Concerning State Taxation of Indian Reservation Cigarette Sales to Non-Indians, 79 Fordham L. Rev. 2301 (April 2011) (detailing cigarette tax disputes in New York State and advocating resolution of such disputes through negotiating government-to-government agreements, as in Washington State) P.633, n. 66. Add the following to the end of the footnote: The Adam Walsh Act has given rise to discussions about tribal-state cooperative agreements. Chapter 4, part I.A.1 nn.13–16 & accompanying text; see generally Brian P. Dimmer, How Tribe and State Cooperative Agreements Can Save the Adam Walsh Act From Encroaching Upon Tribal Sovereignty, 92 Marq. L. Rev. 385 (2008) (arguing that the Adam Walsh Act should be amended to require cooperative agreements to carry out the Act’s required sex offender registration and notification rather than providing for state authority—either under Public Law 280 or whether non–Public Law 280 tribes do not implement tribal programs); Virginia Davis & Kevin Washburn, Sex Offender Registration in Indian Country, 6 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 3 (2008) (discussing impact of Adam Walsh Act on existing cross-deputization agreements). Another area for collaboration is developing in cooperative agreements between state and tribal courts. See generally Hon. Korey Wahwassuck et al., Building a Legacy of Hope: Perspectives on Joint Tribal-State Jurisdiction, 36 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 859 (2010) (describing Joint Powers Agreement between Minnesota state court and Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Tribal Court to form DWI “Wellness Court” with joint jurisdiction over tribal members and non-Indians, and discussing other examples of tribal-state cooperation). For an argument against crossjurisdictional law enforcement agreements, see Andrew G. Hill, Another Blow to Tribal Sovereignty: A Look at Cross-Jurisdictional Law Enforcement Agreements Between Indian Tribes and Local Communities, 34 Am. Indian L. Rev. 291 (2009–2010) (suggesting that agreements authorizing on-reservation law enforcement by non-Indians disadvantage tribes in various ways, including subjecting Indians to bias from non-Indian officers and causing confusion in tribal courts). P.635, n.71. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote before the period: ; see generally Blake R. Bertagna, Reservations About Extending Bivens to Reservations : Seeking Monetary Relief Against Tribal Law Enforcement Officers for Constitutional Violations, 29 Pace L. Rev. 585, 610–618 (2009) (discussing application of FTCA to tribal officers when acting under color of federal law...


pdf