Robert T. Anderson

Bio: Robert T. Anderson is an academic researcher from University of Washington. The author has contributed to research in topics: Jurisdiction & Indian country. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 21 publications receiving 124 citations. Previous affiliations of Robert T. Anderson include University of Tulsa & Harvard University.

Indigenous communities, groundwater opportunities.

Abstract: A U.S. court decision unlocks vast potential to improve sustainable freshwater management Instead of managing fresh water as one integrated resource, laws frequently treat groundwater separately from more visible, monitored, and managed surface waters. One under-recognized consequence of such legal fragmentation has been uncertainty about whether water rights for indigenous communities, which have been addressed in many countries to varying degrees for surface waters, apply to groundwater. In late 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court left standing a lower court ruling endorsing priority groundwater rights for Native American tribes by denying an appeal in Agua Caliente Band v. Coachella Valley Water District (1). This ruling establishes a new standard throughout nine western states within the lower court's jurisdiction and establishes persuasive, although nonbinding, legal precedent for the rest of the United States (1). To evaluate the ruling's broader potential impacts, we present new data cataloging existing Native American water rights and mapping unresolved tribal groundwater claims across the western United States. No court considered such a regional or national quantitative catalog or map. Drawing lessons from past U.S. experience, we then discuss how tribal rights may offer new opportunities to achieve sustainable groundwater management for society at large, with implications beyond the United States.

Sovereignty and Subsistence: Native Self-Government and Rights to Hunt, Fish, and Gather After ANCSA

Abstract: The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was passed in 1971 to extinguish aboriginal rights of Alaska Natives and provide compensation for those rights extinguished. Instead of vesting assets (land and money) in tribal governments, Congress required the formation of Alaska Native corporations to receive and hold these assets. A major flaw in the settlement was the failure to provide statutory protections for the aboriginal hunting, fishing, and gathering rights extinguished by ANCSA. Moreover, while ANCSA did not directly address Alaska Native tribal status or jurisdiction, the Supreme Court interpreted the Act to terminate the Indian country status of ANCSA land. Subsequently, Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) was adopted in 1980 to provide a subsistence priority for rural Alaska residents, but the approach contemplated in Title VIII failed due to the State of Alaska’s unwillingness to participate. On the self-government front, state and federal courts have joined the federal Executive Branch and Congress in recognizing that Alaska Native tribes have the same legal status as other federally recognized tribes in the lower forty-eight states. The Obama Administration recently changed its regulations to allow land to be taken in trust for Alaska Native tribes, and thus be considered Indian country subject to tribal jurisdiction, and generally precluding most state authority. This article explains these developments and offers suggestions for a legal and policy path forward.

American Indian Law : Cases and Commentary

Abstract: This casebook provides an introduction to the legal relationships between American Indian tribes, the federal government and the individual states. The foundational cases are incorporated with statutory text, background material, hypothetical questions, and discussion problems to enliven the classroom experience and enhance student engagement. The second edition includes expanded materials on gaming, international and comparative law, and more photographs, images, and suggestions for links to external sources.

Alaska Native Rights, Statehood, and Unfinished Business

Abstract: Alaska Native aboriginal rights to land and associated resources were never dealt with in a comprehensive fashion until 1971, when Congress passed the Alaska Native Lands Claims Settlement Act. Although general principles of federal Indian law provided strong support for the proposition that Alaska's Native people held aboriginal title to much of the new state, the Alaska Statehood Act itself carefully disclaimed any effect on aboriginal title. This approach was in keeping with the Congress's past dealings with Alaska Native property rights. This article outlines the history of Alaska Native aboriginal rights through the Statehood Act along with their post-statehood treatment in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The article closes with a look at the unsatisfactory treatment of two important aboriginal rights - access to fish and game and tribal sovereignty - and suggests that these areas should be revisited in consultation with Alaska Native peoples.

Current index to legal periodicals

Abstract: American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

Return of the native

Abstract: structure, and the decentring of narrative authority” (xxvii) 89:;# \" < RN = >? \"#@$ (% )A B2 (Thomas Hardy)-C D EF GHIJ KLM# N$ KO; CD EF -A B2 >?PQ7./012 RS8L T ULV$ >?WX YZ[G\\] ^ 56 LM#\" < RN $ EF _ @ -$ ` 1a bc)dea (Eustacia Vye) fgU-L\"T]Oh< i j$ * G klM#\" ` 1abcPmnop fg-$ B .q)ras B2 t (Damon Wildeve) 8 uv)w txa( (Clym Yeobright) P y ; zhPmnop {\"| (a dull sound) (287) lM#}~ $ ` 1abcPmnop € ‚ƒ-„h L\"< ` 1abc …† C‡Pˆ‰ŠL ‹$ ` 1abc-Œ L h$ Ž 8 @L h8\"O‚‘L!’P KL #“ < ”•>? \"#$ –[8 -—˜L…™ }N$ ` 1abc lO † –[š š”•>? ›f† < 8œ$ (% )

The Premise and Promise of Indigenous Archaeology

Abstract: Researchers have increasingly promoted an emerging paradigm of Indigenous archaeology, which includes an array of practices conducted by, for, and with Indigenous communities to challenge the discipline's intellectual breadth and political economy. McGhee (2008) argues that Indigenous archaeology is not viable because it depends upon the essentialist concept of “Aboriginalism.” In this reply, we correct McGhee's description of Indigenous Archaeology and demonstrate why Indigenous rights are not founded on essentialist imaginings. Rather, the legacies of colonialism, sociopolitical context of scientific inquiry, and insights of traditional knowledge provide a strong foundation for collaborative and community-based archaeology projects that include Indigenous peoples.

Racial, ethnic and gender inequities in farmland ownership and farming in the U.S.

Abstract: This paper provides an analysis of U.S. farmland owners, operators, and workers by race, ethnicity, and gender. We first review the intersection between racialized and gendered capitalism and farmland ownership and farming in the United States. Then we analyze data from the 2014 Tenure and Ownership Agricultural Land survey, the 2012 Census of Agriculture, and the 2013–2014 National Agricultural Worker Survey to demonstrate that significant nation-wide disparities in farming by race, ethnicity and gender persist in the U.S. In 2012–2014, White people owned 98% and operated 94% of all farmland. They generated 98% of all farm-related income from land ownership and 97% of income from farm owner-operatorship. Meanwhile, People of Color farmers (African American or Black, Asian American, Native American, Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and Hispanic farmers) were more likely to be tenants rather than owners, owned less land, and generated less farm-related wealth per person than their White counterparts. Hispanic farmers were also disproportionately farm laborers. In addition to racial and ethnic disparities, there were disparities by gender. About 63% of non-operating landowners, 86% of farm operators, and 87% of tenant farmers were male, and female farmers tended to generate less income per farmer than men. This data provides evidence of ongoing racial, ethnic and gender disparities in agriculture in the United States. We conclude with a call to address the structural drivers of the disparities and with recommendations for better data collection.