Tribal Sovereignty and the Federal-Tribal Trust Relationship

Abstract

This article examines the complex legal relationship between the federal government and Native American tribes, focusing on the tensions between tribal sovereignty and the federal trust responsibility. Fletcher analyzes how the Supreme Court's Indian law jurisprudence has alternately expanded and contracted tribal authority, often without a coherent constitutional framework. The article argues that the trust relationship, while providing important protections for tribal interests, has also been used to justify paternalistic federal control over tribal governance. Fletcher proposes a framework that would strengthen tribal sovereignty while preserving the federal government's obligations to protect tribal rights and resources.

Key Findings

• The trust relationship simultaneously protects and constrains tribal sovereignty
• Supreme Court Indian law jurisprudence lacks a consistent constitutional framework
• Tribal sovereignty should be understood as inherent rather than delegated by the federal government
• The trust responsibility should focus on protecting tribal self-determination rather than imposing federal control

Related Statutes

• Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
• Indian Civil Rights Act
• Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

Related Cases

• Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
• McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020)
• Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022)