Paternalism or protection?: Federal review of tribal economic decisions in indian gaming (transcript of panel discussion at Harvard law school)
|Abstract||In a recent Senate hearing, Senator John McCain and Professor Washburn clashed about the federal role in tribal economic decisions involving Indian gaming. Professor Washburn, who was struck by decades of incompetent federal stewardship of tribal trust funds demonstrated so painfully in the Cobell litigation, questioned the wisdom of the existing gaming regulatory structure in which federal officials at the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) exercise oversight of tribal economic decisions involving tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Senator McCain sharply disagreed. Following his investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, McCain was even more certain that tribes needed federal protection from outsiders like Abramoff. McCain argued that the need for such protection justified close federal oversight of tribal economic decisions. The dilemma inherent in this exchange between Senator McCain and Professor Washburn will haunt the relationship between the United States and Indian tribes in the post-Cobell (and post-Abramoff) era. The purpose of this panel discussion at Harvard Law School was to consider these issues in the context of the work of the NIGC. The NIGC reviews Indian gaming management contracts under strict statutory standards. It reviews other contracts for violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's "sole proprietary interest" standard. In an era of tribal self-determination and self-governance, what is the justification for NIGC review of tribal economic decisions? Does the NIGC exercise a "trust responsibility" toward Indian tribes? What are the practical ramifications of having federal public servants reviewing tribal economic decisions worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars? Are the costs of such review justified by the benefits? Is federal oversight useful for tribal transactions in which tribes have obtained the advice of Wall Street investment banks and legal counsel at sophisticated law firms? Are federal public servants competent to review the increasingly complex financial arrangements created in such transactions? Is the NIGC accountable for its decisions? What remedy ought to be available to tribes if the NIGC makes an error? If such review is necessary to protect tribes, on what basis should federal public servants disapprove such agreements?|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Judicial Panel, Law School Curriculum, Training Law Students, and the Vitality of the Profession: The Judicial Perspective - a Panel Discussion.
Patrick M. Garry, Candice Spurlin, Jennifer Keating & Derek Nelsen, Tribal Incorporation of First Amendment Norms: A Case Study of the Indian Tribes of South Dakota.
Michael S. Provenzale, Always Double Down on Eleven Unless the Dealer has Sovereign Immunity: Indian Gaming & a Criticism of Texas V. United States.
Clifton Perry (2004). A Reductio Ad Absurdum of Restricted, Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 18 (2):253-262.
Matthew L. M. Fletcher, Looking to the East: The Stories of Modern Indian People and the Development of Tribal Law.
Angelique EagleWoman, Strate V. A-1 Contractors: Intrusion Into the Sovereign Domain of Native Nations.
Bryan H. Wildenthal, How the Ninth Circuit Overruled a Century of Supreme Court Indian Jurisprudence - and has so Far Gotten Away with It.
A. M. Woodward (1934). Athenian Tribal Cycles W. S. Ferguson: Athenian Tribal Cycles in the Hellenistic Age (Harvard Historical Monographs, I.). Pp. Xv + 197. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press (London: Milford), 1932. Cloth, 8s. 6d. Or $1.50. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 48 (02):65-66.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #188,906 of 722,863 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?