The Nature of Tribal SovereigntyPublished on Lessons of Our Land (http://www.lessonsofourland.org)

Grades: 9th - 12th Grade Lesson: 1Unit: 3: Contemporary American Indian land issuesSubject: History/Social StudiesAchievement Goal: Describe, in one’s own words, the nature of tribal sovereignty and the way it isasserted by tribes and described by the U.S. Supreme Court. Explain why these interpretations arerelevant to every Native person.Time: Two class periods

Lesson Description:Students investigate the effects of Supreme Court decisions on tribes.

Teacher Background:Sparked in part by the outrage of termination and the suppression of treaty rights, the 1960s saw asurge of Indian activism and protests. There were numerous, sometimes violent, confrontations betweenstate police, game and wildlife officials and Indian groups participating in “fish-ins” to promote theirtreaty fishing rights. The 19-month occupation of Alcatraz beginning in 1969 initiated a nine-year periodof activism often referred to as the Red Power movement. Between 1969 and 1978, there were morethan seventy property take-overs and organized demonstrations by Indian activists, including thetakeover and partial destruction of the BIA headquarters in Washington, D.C., in 1972.

In response to the growing awareness of how U.S. Indian policy had failed American Indians, Congressdeveloped and passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975. After reviewing thefederal government’s historical and legal relationship with, and resulting responsibilities to, NativeAmericans, Congress found that:

…The prolonged Federal domination of Indian service programs has served to retard rather thanenhance the progress of Indian people and their communities by depriving Indians fullopportunity to develop leadership skills crucial to the realization of self-government, and hasdenied to the Indian people an effective voice in the planning and implementation of programsfor the benefit of Indians which are responsive to the true needs of Indian communities; and…

…The Indian people will never surrender their desire to control their relationships both amongthemselves and with non-Indian governments, organizations, and persons…

These two “fundamental principles” underlying the Act were based on the recognition of Indian tribes as“domestic dependent nations under [the U.S. federal government’s] protection” which established anddefined a trust relationship with Indian tribes. However, as domestic dependent nations, the Act statedthat “Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory.” The Actasserted that the federal government would “continue” to work with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal self-governance, tribal trust resources, andIndian rights in a way that “supports tribal sovereignty and self-determination.”

However, as this lesson will show, Indian tribal sovereignty is still an unsettled matter today, particularlyhow it is interpreted by the courts. This lesson will introduce the Indian assertion of sovereignty byexamining the occupation of Alcatraz. It will then delve into how sovereignty is viewed by federal courtsand why this matters to American Indians. The lesson will end with students researching a particularSupreme Court case that has had an impact on how tribal sovereignty is viewed by the federalgovernment and the relevance of that case to the lives of American Indians. Teacher Preparation Resources:

Review the PBS lesson plan Alcatraz Is Not an Island: Sovereignty Is the Goal For background on Indian activism of the time and the occupation of Alcatraz see PBS's

Copyright © Indian Land Tenure Foundation, 2014Page 1 of 4

The Nature of Tribal SovereigntyPublished on Lessons of Our Land (http://www.lessonsofourland.org)

webpage Alcatraz Is Not an Island: Indian Activism.Review the PBS lesson plan How the Supreme Court Affects the Lives of Teens Review and make available to students the Philip J. Prygoski article From Marshall to Marshall:The Supreme Court’s Changing Stance on Tribal Sovereignty Review and print out the syllabus, majority opinion (Breyer), the three separate statements ofconcurrence (Stevens, Kennedy, and Thomas), and dissent (Souter) of United States v. Lara, theSupreme Court case argued January 21, 2004 and decided April 19, 2004.

Make these available to students or create five different handouts containing quotes thatreflect the essence of these separate arguments of the judges.

Student Activity:Class Period One:

1. Briefly review with students the history of American Indian federal policy from the 1950s and60s, when the policy of tribal termination sparked Indian activism calling for tribal self-determination and the recognition of sovereignty.

2. Introduce the Indian occupation of Alcatraz as an important event in the beginning of the self-determination movement.

3. After presenting to the students the background to the occupation, utilize the lesson plan“Alcatraz is not an Island: Sovereignty is the Goal,” found in the Lesson Resourcessection, following steps one through seven of the Procedure section. Have the students keeptheir definitions of sovereignty for the next part of the lesson.

Class Period Two:

1. The purpose of this class period is to introduce students to the complexities of the relationshipbetween American Indian tribal sovereignty and the Supreme Court of the United States. In turn,this examination will reveal how Indian land tenure is closely related to sovereignty. This classperiod will rely somewhat upon the lesson plan “How the Supreme Court Affects the Lives ofTeens,” but with special emphasis placed on court cases that pertain to Native Americansovereignty and Indian lands. Make sure the students have the background on the structure andfunction of the Supreme Court by using the resources mentioned in the lesson if need be.

2. At times, the Supreme Court has protected the rights of Native Americans, and at other times,the decisions have had a devastating impact on Indian Country. To convey this to students, havethem read the Prygoski article before they come to class. Ensure that students have a grasp ofthe complexities in how the Supreme Court addresses tribal sovereignty by having the studentsidentify major Supreme Court cases and summarizing the Court’s findings on the board.

3. Brief the students on the Supreme Court case United States v. Lara, decided April 19, 2004.Make sure that students understand elements of the case like the charge of Double Jeopardyand “dual sovereignty.” Divide the class into groups and assign each group to read at least oneof the court statements on the case (in the case of Judge Stevens concurrence, he is reacting tothe Concurrence of Judge Thomas, thus students assigned this portion should read both), orhave them analyze the quotes on their handout. To ensure the students understand thearguments the justices are making, have the students present these arguments to the class.Close the in-class activity with a discussion of how tribal sovereignty is related to Indian land inthis case.

4. As homework, have the students select and analyze a major Supreme Court case dealing withtribal sovereignty and/or Indian lands. Their write-up should identify the parties and demonstratean understanding of the circumstances of the cases as well as the facts in dispute.

5. Students should also be able to describe the historical era, include a summary of the arguments,a summary of the decision and an explanation of how this decision is relevant to Indians andtheir lands today. Cases worthy of student investigation include:

Johnson vs. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823)Copyright © Indian Land Tenure Foundation, 2014

Page 2 of 4

The Nature of Tribal SovereigntyPublished on Lessons of Our Land (http://www.lessonsofourland.org)

Cherokee Nations vs. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831)Worcester vs. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883)U.S. vs. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886)Lone Wolf vs. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903)U.S. vs. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913)U.S. ex rel Hualapai Indians vs. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co., 314 U.S. 339 (1941)Tee-Hit-Ton Indians vs. United States, 348 U.S. 273 (1955)Menominee Tribe vs. U.S. 391 U.S. 404 (1968)Morton vs. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974)U.S. vs. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975)Santa Clara Pueblo vs. Martinez 436 US 49 (1978)Oliphant vs. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978)U.S. vs. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978)Merrion vs. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1980)South Dakota vs. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 273 (1998)Alaska vs. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 329 (1998)Minnesota vs. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999)Rice vs. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000)Nevada vs. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001)U.S. vs. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003)

Evaluation:

1. Check for students’ understanding of the nature of tribal sovereignty and the way it is assertedby tribes and described by the U.S. Supreme Court.

2. Determine if the students understand why these interpretations are relevant and how theyimpact every Native person.

Lesson Resources:

American Bar Association webpage Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School PBS.org

Source URL: http://www.lessonsofourland.org/lessons/nature-tribal-sovereignty

Links:[1] http://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo.html[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-107.ZS.html[3] http://www.pbs.org[4] http://www.lessonsofourland.org/grade-level/9th-12th-grade[5] http://www.lessonsofourland.org/flag/unflag/recently_viewed/345?destination=printpdf/345&token=mu3KX6cbIgFpyIOfhWgVGdmA8tLK-u573TnBQUz7uAE[6] http://www.lessonsofourland.org/flag/flag/lessons/345?destination=printpdf/345&token=mu3KX6cbIgFpyIOfhWgVGdmA8tLK-u573TnBQUz7uAE[7] http://www.lessonsofourland.org/subjects/historysocial-studies[8] http://www.lessonsofourland.org/states/general[9] http://www.lessonsofourland.org/units/3-contemporary-american-indian-land-issues[10] http://www.pbs.org/itvs/alcatrazisnotanisland/educators2.html[11] http://www.pbs.org/itvs/alcatrazisnotanisland/activism.html[12] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/october01/supremecourt/[13] http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/marshall.html[14] http://http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-107.ZS.htmlCopyright © Indian Land Tenure Foundation, 2014

Page 3 of 4

The Nature of Tribal SovereigntyPublished on Lessons of Our Land (http://www.lessonsofourland.org)

Copyright © Indian Land Tenure Foundation, 2014Page 4 of 4