The Supreme Court has made headlines lately for several controversial rulings, such as gutting affirmative action and overturning abortion rights. Yet, long before recent cases gained attention, it had quietly and systematically undermined Indigenous sovereignty. Over the past three decades, Indigenous tribes have lost two-thirds of all cases brought before the high court, raising alarms among advocates for Native rights.
The silent crisis surrounding Indigenous sovereignty has roots stretching back centuries, but substantial shifts began taking place during the 1970s when Indigenous leaders and grassroots activists started to gain traction. The termination era of the earlier decades had been particularly damaging, with over 100 tribes being erased from legal existence. Activists formed movements like Red Power and American Indian Movements to fight against this. Their efforts led Congress to acknowledge the rights of tribes to self-determination, resulting in the establishment of laws aimed at protecting their interests.
Despite these positive changes, the Supreme Court's decisions increasingly favored settler interests. A notable example is the 1978 ruling in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, which claimed tribes could not prosecute non-Natives for crimes committed on tribal lands. This decision came after Mark Oliphant, who was charged with disorderly conduct, argued he could not be prosecuted since he was not Native American. The court sided with Oliphant, asserting it was assumed tribes lacked such authority. What quickly followed was not just a legal ruling but rampant violence against Native populations, especially women and vulnerable groups.
Statistics reveal the grave impact of the Oliphant ruling: according to the Department of Justice, around 80% of Native women experience violence during their lifetimes, with most of their aggressors being non-Native. This startling reality raises questions about the responsibilities of law enforcement and justice on tribal lands.
Further complicity by the Supreme Court manifested through decisions like Montana v. United States, which restricted civil jurisdiction for tribes over non-Natives, particularly on what’s called 'fee land'—meaning lands owned privately but within reservation boundaries. The ruling set stringent requirements, allowing tribes to act only under rare exceptions, creating significant limitations on protecting their economies and environments.
For example, if pollution occurs on tribal lands by non-Native businesses, tribes face monumental barriers to enact necessary legal action. The Montana ruling has made any attempts at civil redress for harmful actions nearly impossible, leaving Indigenous communities vulnerable to exploitation.
The trend continued with the 2005 ruling of City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, where the court ruled against the Oneida Nation, denying them the ability to place repurchased land back under tribal jurisdiction. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg claimed it was too disruptive to restore sovereignty to land taken illegally long before, indirectly reinforcing the principle of settler entitlement over Indigenous reparation rights.
Even more disheartening, these rulings often disregarded the histories and laws pertaining to Indigenous nations, as illustrated when former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor questioned during hearings how all white people might live on formerly Indigenous lands. Such ignorance highlights persistent disconnects between the realities of Indigenous experiences and the legal frameworks imposed by the Supreme Court.
One of the most pressing consequences of these decisions is the growing sense of lawlessness within Indigenous territories, where non-Native individuals often act without concern for tribal authority or welfare. The cumulative effect creates not only legal complications but also social and economic despair.
Historically, rulings have consistently favored settlers, reshaping legal standards to meet their needs rather than protecting Indigenous nations. Many tribal leaders express concerns as they watch their rights rolled back, leading to fears of what lies ahead for their communities.
The potential fallout from such ruling patterns has prompted calls for change from both activists and lawmakers. Increasing public scrutiny and rising awareness of Indigenous issues serve as platforms to advocate for the recognition of tribal sovereignty and the authority of Indigenous governments.
Continued undermining of these rights not only impacts current generations but threatens the heritage and identity of Indigenous peoples. Activists assert it reflects broader systemic injustices facing America’s first nations and urge for reforms at all levels of government.
The dialogue around these issues reflects growing public interest and engagement, with rising activism pushing for accountability from the judicial system. Advocates hope to reverse the trend of judicial neglect of Indigenous sovereignty and push for recognition of tribal rights as fundamental to American democracy.
With pressure mounting on the Supreme Court and increasing visibility on Indigenous issues, the hope is for judicial decisions to begin reflecting the rights and dignity of Indigenous nations, fostering restoration of justice where it is most direly needed.
