Federal courtshave an outsizedimpact on theeveryday lives ofNative Americans,and none more sothan the UnitedStates SupremeCourt. Who is anIndian? What is an Indian Tribe?What is the scope

of tribal governmental authority? These typesof fundamental questions are routinely decidedby federal courts, and the country’s highestcourt agrees to hear a higher percentage ofIndian law cases than most other types of cases.

The recently decided McGirt v. Oklahoma is anexample of such a case. In this case, the Courtcorrected the long-held misconception and myththat Oklahoma statehood is incompatible withIndian reservations. It also reaffirmed a centraltreaty promise made by the United States.

Because the decision in a case like McGirt likelywill impact all of Indian Country, it is crucialthat we have a nationwide, coordinated approachto Indian law cases before the Supreme Court.That effort is embodied in the work of the TribalSupreme Court Project, which is jointly staffedby attorneys from the Native American RightsFund (NARF) and the National Congress ofAmerican Indians (NCAI). Indian Country’srecent win in McGirt v. Oklahoma illustrates theProject’s successful approach.

Establishing a HomelandMcGirt v. Oklahoma deals with the Muscogee(Creek) Nation’s homelands, located in easternOklahoma. A little history of the region isrequired to understand the case. The area that isnow Oklahoma was once called the IndianTerritory. It was intended to be a homeland forrelocated Indian tribes rather than a future state.One of the tribes that relocated to the IndianTerritory in the first-half of the 1800s was theMuscogee (Creek) Nation, whose ancestral homewas in the Southeast.

Like other tribes in the Southeast at the time,the Creek were under assault from state govern-ments that unlawfully imprisoned people andtried to extinguish Indian title to the land. Facedwith this crisis, five tribes (the Creek, Cherokee,Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminoles) signedtreaties with the United States, which promisedhomelands in the Indian Territory that would beforever beyond the reach of any state govern-ment. Many saw these treaties, and the move tothe Indian Territory, as the only hope for theirsurvival as a people.

Although the promise of an undisturbedhomeland was reaffirmed in subsequent

VOLUME 45, NO. 2 SUMMER/FALL 2020

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

McGirt v. Oklahoma:The US Supreme Court’s Impact on Indian Country

McGirt v. Oklahoma: The US Supreme Court’sImpact on Indian Country .................... page 1

Case Updates .......................................... page 5

National Indian Law Library .................. page 9

Call to Action ........................................ page 10

NARF .................................................... page 11

NARF Board .......................................... page 12

treaties with the United States that were signedafter the Creek Nation relocated to IndianTerritory, the reality on the ground was different.The non-Indian thirst for land and resourceswould arrive at Creek borders once again by thelate nineteenth century. Non-Indians begansquatting in the reservations. Not surprisingly,the United States refused to remove them as thetreaties required.

McGirt v. OklahomaHow does this relate to McGirt v. Oklahoma?Mr. McGirt (Seminole) was convicted of criminalfelonies by an Oklahoma state court. In hisappeal, McGirt argued that his crimes occurredwithin the boundaries of the Creek reservation.According to his argument, because he was inIndian country, the Major Crimes Act gave thefederal government—not the state—jurisdictionover him.

In contrast, Oklahoma argued that the Creekreservation no longer existed. The state contendedthat the region’s Indian reservationswere disestablished to pave the wayfor Oklahoma’s statehood. Moreinsidiously, the state argued thataffirming the Creek reservationwould have widespread disruptiveconsequences for non-Indian resi-dents, who, believing that the reser-vation was erased more than 100years ago, would suddenly awakenone morning to find themselves liv-ing on an Indian reservation.

In federal Indian law, Congressmust express clear intent to removeor reduce the size of an Indianreservation. However, Oklahomacould not point to anywhere inCongressional text where theyshowed clear intent to shrink or dis-establish the reservation. In fact,the Creek Nation’s tribal govern-ment retained significant powersafter statehood.

Ultimately, the Court sided with Mr.McGirt and held that “the Creek

were promised . . . a ‘permanent home’ thatwould be ‘forever set apart’” and were “assured aright to self-government on lands that would lieoutside both the legal jurisdiction and geograph-ic boundaries of any State.” Nowhere were thosetreaty promises nullified and so, legally, theywere still intact. To allow the state to proceed asit always had, exercising jurisdiction over thetribes despite the clear treaty promises to thecontrary “would be the rule of the strong, not therule of the law.”

What the Decision Is … and Is NotWhile the Court affirmed the continued existenceof the Creek reservation specifically, severaltribes have similar treaty provisions. There is astrong likelihood that the courts will similarlyconclude that the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw,and Seminole reservations continue to exist. Thatdoes not mean chaos is just over the horizon.

This decision does not mean all the Indians con-victed of major crimes in eastern Oklahoma go

PAGE 2 NARF LEGAL REVIEW

NAT

IVE

AMER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUN

D

VOLUME 45, NO. 2 PAGE 3

NATIVE AM

ERICAN RIGHTS FUN

Dfree. The state, tribal, and federal governmentshave a shared interest in public safety. Evenbefore McGirt, Oklahoma tribes and local juris-dictions entered into cross-deputization agree-ments. While a reallocation of resources may becalled for, the cooperative approach developedover the past several decades can be built uponand expanded to ensure continued public safety.

Nor does McGirt change land ownership by con-verting private property to tribal land. As theopinion emphasizes, private land holdings arecommon on Indian reservations. While jurisdic-tion over land may shift, ownership does not.

However, for the Creek Nation, McGirt is a pro-found affirmation of a homeland that their ances-tors sacrificed everything to secure. By correct-ing a false narrative of tribal erasure inOklahoma, the decision was a victory for allOklahoma tribes as well. Moreover, coming onthe heels of two other treaty rights victories inthe past two years, the opinion offers hope fortribes across the country that a Court, often hos-tile to Indian interests in recent decades, may bepoised to enforce their rights more robustly.

Tribal Supreme Court Project’s Support inMcGirt v. OklahomaThe recent victory in McGirt v. Oklahoma is aprime example of how the Tribal Supreme CourtProject supports tribal success at the Court. TheSupreme Court is a highly specialized institutionwith a unique set of procedures. Tribal advocacy

in the Court requires a coordinated and struc-tured approach. There are several ways in whichthe Project supports tribal advocates before theSupreme Court. Often, this assistance begins wellbefore the Court even agrees to hear the case.

The reservation disestablishment question thatwas decided in McGirt first arrived at the Courtduring the previous term and in a different case,Sharp v. Murphy. Identifying Murphy as a likelyfuture Supreme Court case, the Project’s engage-ment started early, when a Tenth Circuit panelaffirmed the Creek reservation’s continued exis-tence and Oklahoma requested rehearing by thefull Tenth Circuit.

By the time the Supreme Court agreed to hearMurphy, nearly a year later, the preliminary plan-ning for the Project’s role in the case was alreadyin place. Little did we know at the time that, withJustice Gorsuch’s recusal, the Supreme Courtwould be unable to decide Murphy and wouldgrant McGirt, which presented the same issue butdid not trigger Justice Gorsuch’s recusal. In manyways, all of the preparation and work done inMurphy would prove to be a rehearsal for McGirt.

Another significant factor in Muphy and McGirt’ssuccess was the top-shelf legal representation ofthe Creek Nation, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. McGirt. Inboth cases, the Creek Nation was represented byRiyaz Kanji, a former Supreme Court clerk andwidely respected Indian law practitioner, who wasinstrumental in the Tribal Supreme CourtProject’s founding. Likewise, Mr. Murphy and Mr.

photo credit: Rdlogan05 / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)

PAGE 4 NARF LEGAL REVIEW

NAT

IVE

AMER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUN

D McGirt were represented by Ian Gershengorn, aformer Acting Solicitor General of the UnitedStates who also was an early advisor to theProject. These long-standing relationshipsenabled the Project to work very closely withthese attorneys in an especially effective manner.

Working together, we formulated a strategy inMurphy that consisted of six amicus (friends ofthe court) briefs. The Native American RightsFund and co-counsel filed one of these amicusbriefs on behalf of the National Congress ofAmerican Indians. These briefs provided criticalcontext and information to the Court, such as thepractical consequences of reservation disestab-lishment, the impacts on Native provisions in theViolence Against Women Act, historical back-ground, and the importance of a stable frame-work for resolving reservation boundary disputes.As part of the process of developing these briefswe circulated them among the Project’s workinggroup for the case. This collective review ensuredconsistency in the messages and eliminatedredundancy between briefs. We repeated theprocess for McGirt, using essentially the samestrategy, but refining our work even more.Perhaps the best measure of the effectiveness ofthe briefs is that the justices brought up pointsfrom them during oral argument and cited themfavorably in the majority opinion.

Beyond McGirt: Trends at the Supreme CourtBeyond the context of any specific case, for yearsthe Tribal Supreme Court Project has workedhard to educate Supreme Court justices aboutfederal Indian law. In 2001, Justices O’Connorand Breyer took part in an historic visit to Indiancountry to observe tribal justice systems. Sincethat time, federal judges from the US Courts ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit, Tenth Circuit, andEighth Circuit have attended NCAI conferencesheld in Sacramento, Denver, and Rapid City,respectively. In August 2011, Chief Judge Rileywas joined by Justice Alito during the EighthCircuit Judicial Conference for a tour of the PineRidge Indian Reservation—a visit coordinated byNCAI and the South Dakota tribes. JusticeSotomayor visited the Jemez Pueblo, the SantaDomingo Pueblo, the Leadership Institute at the

Santa Fe Indian School, and the University ofNew Mexico. As new justices join the Court, wewill continue to provide opportunities for themto visit and become more familiar with tribal gov-ernments and communities.

There is evidence that the Project’s efforts aregradually paying dividends. In recent years, wehave seen a much more positive trend on theSupreme Court. Since 2015, tribal interests haveprevailed in all but one case.

Some of this newfound success may be attribut-able to recent changes in the Supreme Court’smake-up. In the early years of the Roberts Court,the Supreme Court lacked an intellectual leaderin Indian law. That changed with the confirma-tion of Sonia Sotomayor in 2009. She spoke offocusing on Indian law as a justice during a visitto pueblos in New Mexico in 2011 and laterdescribed how she studied Indian law closely afterjoining the Supreme Court. Her outstandingIndian law opinions are almost always joined byJustice Kagan, who was confirmed the year afterJustice Sotomayor. Justice Kagan has likewisewritten important opinions supporting tribal sov-ereignty and has consistently voted in favor oftribal interests. In 2016, Justice Scalia, who votedagainst tribal interests nearly 87% of the time,was replaced by Neil Gorsuch, a Tenth Circuitjudge with significant Indian law background. Sofar, Justice Gorsuch has voted in favor of tribalinterests in all but one case and has lent a com-pelling voice to Indian law issues in his writings– including authoring the majority opinion inMcGirt. Thus, in a few years, the Supreme Courtgained three important leaders in Indian law.

ConclusionOver nearly 20 years, the Tribal Supreme CourtProject has developed and executed innovativestrategies for improving the recent win-lossrecord of tribes at the Supreme Court. Althoughtribal interests have achieved significant victoriesin recent years, often it has been by the slimmestof margins. Successes like McGirt demonstratehow we can succeed in this collective effort andthe importance of this work in protecting therights of tribes. ❂

VOLUME 45, NO. 2 PAGE 5

NATIVE AM

ERICAN RIGHTS FUN

D

CASE UPDATES

In the United States, power is availablethrough participatory democracy. NativeAmericans consistently have been denied full access to state and federaldemocratic systems. If Native Americanscan engage fully in the political system—free from the barriers that currentlyobstruct them—they can reclaim powerand participate in America in a way thatis fair and just. For a democratic systemto be healthy, all voices must be heard. The first people on the land should notbe the last to vote.

In 2017 and 2018, the Native AmericanVoting Rights Coalition—founded by theNative American Rights Fund—held ninepublic hearings to better understand howNative Americans are systemically and culturally kept from fully exercising theirfranchise. More than 120 witnesses testified from dozens of tribes across thecountry.

The final report of the findings fromthose hearings, Obstacles at Every Turn:Barriers to Political Participation Facedby Native American Voters, was releasedJune 4, 2020, and provides detailed evidence that Native people face obsta-cles at every turn in the electoral process:from registering to vote, to casting votes,to having votes counted.

Some of these findings affect non-Nativesas well. Many are particular to the IndianCountry experience in 2020. Some wereput in place specifically to suppressturnout.

Difficulties in voting—the very founda-tion of democracy—are not new forNative Americans. It is part of the legacy

Obstacles at Every Turn: Barriers to Political ParticipationFaced by Native American Voters

of genocide and racism the continent’s first peoples havefought for more than 500 years. But just as it is not new,this problem also is not unsolvable. Politicians would do well to note the impact of their Native American constituents. The Native vote regularly decides electionsin the Dakotas, Alaska, and parts of the Southwest.

Simply put: the first people on the land should not be thelast to vote.

Download the full report and find summaries and recom-mendations for a way forward at https://vote.narf.org/obstacles-at-every-turn/.

PAGE 6 NARF LEGAL REVIEW

NAT

IVE

AMER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUN

D

On September 25, 2020, a Montana court perma-nently struck down a state law that severelyrestricted the right to vote for indigenous peopleliving on rural reservations.

The case, Western Native Voice v. Stapleton, wasfiled in March on behalf of the Assiniboine &Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck, Blackfeet Nation,Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of theFlathead Reservation, Crow Tribe, and FortBelknap Indian Community (all represented byNARF) as well as Western Native Voice andMontana Native Vote, Native American-led orga-nizations focused on getting out the vote andincreasing civic participation in the NativeAmerican community (represented by theAmerican Civil Liberties Union, and ACLU ofMontana). The suit challenged the so-calledMontana Ballot Interference Prevention Act(BIPA), a law that imposed severe restrictions onballot collection efforts, which are critical toNative American voters living on rural reserva-tions.

The law set an arbitrary limit on the number ofballots an individual could collect and restrictedthe categories of individuals permitted to collectballots. These limitations were intended to suppress turnout on rural reservations, where

geographic and socioeconomic barriers to votingmake ballot collection even more critical.

In the introduction of the order the court wrote,“the questions presented cannot be viewedthrough the lens of our own upbringings or ownlife experiences, but through the lens of the cold,hard data that was presented at trial about theclear limitations Native American communitiesin Montana face, and how the costs associatedwith … (“BIPA”) are simply too high and too bur-densome to remain the law of the State ofMontana.”

In a state where the majority of individuals voteby mail, rural tribal communities—who oftenlack home mail service—work with get-out-the-vote organizers who collect and transport ballotsto election offices that would otherwise be inac-cessible because of distance, lack of access totransportation, or other socio-economic barriers.Ballot collection efforts are often the only wayNative Americans living on rural reservations canaccess the vote.

BIPA would have effectively ended ballot collec-tion and disenfranchised Native American votersen masse. The court’s decision is one step forwardin the fight to protect the Native vote.

Court Permanently Strikes Down Montana Law ThatRestricts Native Voting Rights

VOLUME 45, NO. 2 PAGE 7

NATIVE AM

ERICAN RIGHTS FUN

D

The Tribal Supreme Court Project is part of theTribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative and isstaffed by the National Congress of AmericanIndians and the Native American Rights Fund.The Project was formed in 2001 in response to aseries of US Supreme Court cases that negativelyaffected tribal sovereignty. The purpose of theProject is to promote greater coordination and toimprove strategy on litigation that may affect therights of all Indian tribes. We encourage Indiantribes and their attorneys to contact the Projectto coordinate resources, develop strategy andprepare briefs, especially at the time of the petition for a writ of certiorari, prior to theSupreme Court accepting a case for review. You can find copies of briefs and opinions on themajor cases we track on the NARF website(https://sct.narf.org).

On October 5, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Courtbegan its October Term 2020. On the opening dayof the term, the Court issued an order list from its“long conference,” which was held on September29, 2020. Among the more 1,000 petitions forreview that were denied were three Indian lawmatters: Nobles v. North Carolina (20-87) (chal-lenging state court conclusion that defendant wasnot Indian for purposes of the Major Crimes Act);In re: Scott Louis Youngbear (20-78) (habeas cor-pus petition by Native American inmate); andNative Wholesale Supply Company v. California(19-985) (state regulation of Indian-owned busi-ness). In addition, in a case involving an Indian’schallenge to his Oklahoma state court convictionon the grounds that the crime occurred in Indiancountry, the Court granted, vacated, and remand-ed for reconsideration in light of its decision inMcGirt v. Oklahoma.

President Trump has nominated Judge AmyConey Barrett of the Seventh Circuit Court ofAppeals to the seat on the U.S. Supreme Courtopened by the death of Justice Ruth BaderGinsburg in September 2020. NARF has prepareda memorandum examining her Indian law back-ground and experience, which is available at theProject website.

INDIAN LAW CASES DECIDED BY THESUPREME COURT

The Court has decided one Indian law case in theOctober 2020 term:

WILSON V. OKLAHOMA (19-8126): Grant,vacate, and remand (October 5, 2020) based onMcGirt v. Oklahoma. Petitioner is an Indian convicted of first degree murder in Oklahomastate court. He asserted that the location wherethe crime occurred was “Indian Country,” andtherefore the state court was without authority toconvict him of the offense. The Supreme Courtsummarily granted the petition, vacated thelower court’s decision, and remanded for furtherconsideration in light of McGirt v. Oklahoma.

PETITIONS FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARIPENDING

The following petitions for a writ of certiorarihave been filed in Indian law and Indian law-related cases and are pending before the Court:

Tribal Supreme Court Project

NAT

IVE

AMER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUN

D

PAGE 8 NARF LEGAL REVIEW

YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO V. TEXAS (20-493):The State of Texas sued the Ysleta Del Sur Puebloto enjoin certain gaming operations. The districtcourt issued summary judgment in favor ofTexas, holding that the Pueblo’s settlement act,not the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, governedthe Pueblo’s gaming activities.

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE V. TULALIPTRIBES (20-195): Two tribes brought action in asubproceeding of United States v. Washingtonseeking additional usual-and-accustomed fishinggrounds and stations (U&A) in saltwater of PugetSound. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appealsaffirmed dismissal of the case because a previouscourt order had determined the scope of theplaintiff Tribes’ U&A.

UNITED STATES V. COOLEY (19-1414): A non-Indian motorist was charged with federal nar-cotics offenses as result of evidence discovered byCrow Tribe police officer after conducting a safetycheck of the vehicle parked on the side of a stateroadway crossing the reservation. The trial courtgranted his motion to suppress evidence obtainedby the Tribal police officer. The Ninth Circuit heldthat the non-Indian was held by the Tribal policeofficer in violation of the Indian Civil Rights Actwhere he formed the opinion that the person wasnon-Indian and subsequently determined that itwas “apparent” that a federal crime was beingcommitted. A Ninth Circuit panel held that thenon-Indian was seized and searched in violationof the Indian Civil Rights Act, and that evidenceobtained as a result was inadmissible in a federalcourt prosecution.

FMC V. SHOSHONE BANNOCK TRIBES (19-1143): This case arises from FMC Corporation’s(“FMC”) operation of an elemental phosphorusplant on fee land within the Shoshone-BannockFort Hall Reservation. FMC’s operations pro-duced enormous amounts of hazardous wastethat is stored on the reservation. In 1990, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)declared FMC’s plant and storage area aSuperfund site. A subsequent consent decree set-tling an EPA suit against FMC required the com-pany to obtain permits from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. FMC agreed to pay $1.5 millionper year for a tribal use permit allowing storageof hazardous waste, and paid the fee from 1998 to2001. FMC refused to continue paying in 2002when it ceased plant operations, but it neverthe-less still stores hazardous waste on the reserva-tion. During federal court proceedings initiatedby the Tribes to enforce the consent decree, FMCapplied for tribal permits and eventually chal-lenged the Tribes’ regulatory jurisdiction in tribalcourt. The Tribal Appellate Court held that theTribes possessed adjudicatory and regulatoryjurisdiction over FMC pursuant to the secondMontana exception. FMC then challenged thetribal court’s jurisdiction in federal court, whichruled in favor of the Tribes. On appeal, the NinthCircuit concluded that tribal jurisdiction existedunder both Montana exceptions.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TRIBAL SUPREMECOURT PROJECT

NCAI and NARF welcome general contributionsto the Tribal Supreme Court Project. Please sendany general contributions to the NCAI Fund,attn: Kurt Sodee, 1516 P Street, NW, Washington,DC 20005. Please contact us if you have anyquestions or if we can be of assistance: DerrickBeetso, NCAI General Counsel, 202-630-0318,dbeetso@ncai.org; or Joel West Williams, NARFSenior Staff Attorney, 202-785-4166,williams@narf.org. ❂

National Indian Law Library (NILL)

Current Awareness in Your Inbox Each week, the National Indian Law Library(NILL) provides free updates on Indian lawthrough the Indian Law Bulletins. Almost ninethousand patrons receive the free weekly updatesby email, while others access them through theNILL website or NARF’s Facebook page. TheIndian Law Bulletins are the only regularly pub-lished updates on Indian law covering tribalcourts, federal and state courts, federal agencies,US legislation, law review articles, and news.

Curated Results from NILL’s Researchers It’s easy to get overwhelmed by the sheer amountof information available on the internet, and notall of that information is complete and accurate.NILL staff and volunteers research new develop-ments in Indian Law each week and select onlytimely and relevant information to include in theIndian Law Bulletins. You can feel confident thatthe information you receive includes what youneed to know to stay up-to-date. This currentawareness service is provided free of charge, andthe library can provide additional informationrelating to your topic if needed.

Free Searchable Database of Indian Law and News Besides the weekly updates and emails, contentfrom the Indian Law Bulletins is archived on the

NILL website. The archived collection serves as asearchable database of Native American law andlegal news. To begin researching a topic, typeyour search term into the search box on the rightside of the Indian Law Bulletins page.(www.narf.org/nill/bulletins) You can search byIndian law topic or case name, just as you wouldin Google. Your search results will be organizedunder nine tabs that represent each of the indi-vidual bulletins.

Most of the materials that are covered in the bul-letins are available online. If the item you wouldlike to see is not available online, you can contactthe library (www.narf.org/nill/asknill.html) torequest a copy of the item as well as additionalinformation on your topic.

Support the National Indian Law Library Your contributions help ensure that the librarycan continue to supply unique and free access toIndian law resources and that it has the financialmeans necessary to pursue innovative andgroundbreaking projects to serve you better. Weare not tax-supported and rely on individual con-tributions to fund our services. Please visitwww.narf.org/nill/donate for more informationon how you can support this mission. ❂

To receive the Indian Law Bulletins by email, sign up at www.narf.org/nill/bulletins

VOLUME 45, NO. 2 PAGE 9

NATIVE AM

ERICAN RIGHTS FUN

D

PAGE 10 NARF LEGAL REVIEW

NAT

IVE

AMER

ICAN

RIG

HTS

FUN

D

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

Ak-Chin Indian Community Amerind Risk

Chickasaw NationConfederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians Mooretown Rancheria

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe

Nome Eskimo Community Poarch Band of Creek Indians

Redding Rancheria Rosebud Sioux Tribe

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Seminole Tribe of Florida Tanana Chiefs Conference

United Tribes of Bristol Bay Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation

It has been made abundantly clear that non-Indian philanthropy cannot sustain NARF’swork. Federal funds for specific projects alsohave been reduced. To provide legal advocacy ina wide variety of areas such as religious free-dom, the Tribal Supreme Court Project, tribalrecognition, human rights, trust responsibility,voting rights, tribal water rights, Indian ChildWelfare Act, and tribal sovereignty issues, NARFlooks to the tribes to provide the needed funding. It is an honor to list those tribes andNative organizations who have chosen to share

their good fortunes with the Native AmericanRights Fund and the thousands of Indian clientsthat we serve.

We encourage other tribes and organizations to become contributors and partners with NARFin fighting for justice for our people and inkeeping the vision of our ancestors alive. Wethank the following tribes and Native organiza-tions for their generous support of NARF in the2020 fiscal year (October 1, 2019 to September30, 2020):

CALL TO ACTION

VOLUME 45, NO. 2 PAGE 11

NATIVE AM

ERICAN RIGHTS FUN

D

THE NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

NARF Annual Report: This is NARF’s major report on its programs andactivities. The Annual Report is distributed to foundations, major con-tributors, certain federal and state agencies, tribal clients, NativeAmerican organizations, and to others upon request.

NARF Legal Review is published biannually by the Native AmericanRights Fund. Third class postage paid at Boulder, Colorado. There is nocharge for subscriptions, however, contributions are appreciated.

Tax Status: The Native American Rights Fund is a nonprofit, charitableorganization incorporated in 1971 under the laws of the District ofColumbia. NARF is exempt from federal income tax under the provisionsof Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and contributions toNARF are tax deductible. The Internal Revenue Service has ruled thatNARF is not a “private foundation” as defined in Section 509(a) of theInternal Revenue Code.

www.narf.org

Boulder, CO (Main) Office:1506 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302-6217(303) 447-8760; FAX (303) 443-7776

Washington, DC Office: 1514 P Street, NW (Rear) Suite D, Washington, DC 20005-1910 (202) 785-4166; FAX (202) 822-0068

Anchorage, AK Office: 745 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 502, Anchorage, AK 99501-1736(907) 276-0680; FAX (907) 276-2466

The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is the oldestand largest nonprofit legal organization defending andpromoting the legal rights of Indian people on issuesessential to their tribal sovereignty, natural resources, andhuman rights.

Since 1970, we have provided specialized legal advice andrepresentation to Native American tribes and organiza-tions on issues of major importance. Our early work wasinstrumental in establishing the field of Indian law.NARF—when very few would—steadfastly took stands forIndian religious freedom and sacred places, subsistencehunting and fishing rights, as well as basic human andcivil rights. We continue to take on complex, time-consuming cases that others avoid, such as governmentaccountability, voting rights, climate change, and the education of our children. We have assisted more than300 tribal nations with critical issues that go to the heartof who we are as sovereign nations.

NARF’s first Board of Directors developed priorities toguide the organization in its mission to preserve andenforce the legal rights of Native Americans. Those fivepriorities continue to lead NARF today:

● Preserve tribal existence● Protect tribal natural resources● Promote Native American human rights● Hold governments accountable to Native Americans● Develop Indian law and educate the public about

Indian rights, laws, and issues

Under preserving tribal existence, NARF works to construct the foundations that empower tribes to liveaccording to their traditions, enforce their treaty rights,insure their independence on reservations, and protecttheir sovereignty.

An adequate land base and control over natural resourcesare central components of economic self-sufficiency andself-determination, and are vital to the very existence oftribes. Thus, much of NARF’s work involves protectingtribal natural resources.

Although basic human rights are considered a universaland inalienable entitlement, Native Americans face theongoing threat of having their rights undermined by theUnited States government, states, and others who seek tolimit these rights. Under the priority of promotinghuman rights, NARF strives to enforce and strengthenlaws that protect the rights of Native Americans to practicetheir traditional religion, use their languages, and enjoytheir culture.

Contained within the unique trust relationship betweenthe United States and Indian nations is the inherent dutyfor all levels of government to recognize and responsiblyenforce the laws and regulations applicable to Indian peoples. Because such laws impact virtually every aspectof tribal life, NARF is committed to holding governmentsaccountable to Native Americans.

Developing Indian law and educating the public aboutIndian rights, laws, and issues is essential for the con-tinued protection of Indian rights. This primarily involvesestablishing favorable court precedents, distributinginformation and law materials, encouraging and fosteringIndian legal education, and forming alliances with Indianlaw practitioners and other Indian organizations.

Requests for legal assistance should be addressed toNARF’s main office at 1506 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302.NARF’s clients are expected to pay what they can towardthe costs of legal representation.

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND BOARD OF DIRECTORSLacey A. Horn, Chair ................................................................................................Cherokee Nation

Vice-Chair ......................................................................................................................currently open

Derek Valdo, Treasurer ..............................................................................................Pueblo of Acoma

Michael C. Smith ....................................................................................................Chickasaw Nation

Kenneth Kahn ........................................................................Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians

Anita Mitchell ..........................................................................................................Muckleshoot Tribe

Rhonda Pitka ..................................................................................................Native Village of Beaver

Camille K. Kalama ......................................................................................................Native Hawaiian

Rebecca A. Miles ..........................................................................................................Nez Perce Tribe

Robert Miguel ..........................................................................................Ak Chin Indian Community

Jamie Azure ..................................................................................Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa

Gayla Hoseth ..................................................................................................Curyung Tribal Council

Stephanie A. Bryan................................................................................Poarch Band of Creek Indians

Executive Director: John E. Echohawk ..................................................................................Pawnee

NARF LEGAL REVIEW • VOLUME 45, NO. 2 • SUMMER/FALL 2020

Native American Rights Fund1506 BroadwayBoulder, CO 80302

Non-Profit Org.U.S. PostagePAID

Boulder, ColoradoPermit No. 589

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER