> Some believe Alvarez had discovered money-skimming by outsiders helping the tiny Cabazon Band of Mission Indians manage its fledgling casino. Others suspect, however, that he had stumbled onto plans for a top-secret weapons deal on reservation land.
> Witnesses and court documents diverge considerably, however, on whether a secret partnership between the Cabazon tribe and the private security firm Wackenhut Corp. was a deal to provide security services, build a munitions arsenal or sell weapons to the Nicaraguan Contras, a U.S.-backed rebel group. [1]
Trouble is, as far as your question goes, various government entities including the Justice Dept. and the CIA, etc. were the ones taking advantage of the territorial immunity of the tribe concerned (in various of the conspiracy scenarios, that is, which I in no way endorse, though I still read up on it when possible)
If you're interested, for an overview of the wider ramifications, [2] & [3] are not-bad entry points.
1: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-murder-case-dropped...
2: https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/may/16/FBI-promi...
3: https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/mar/15/danny-cas...
I just had the scary thought of the US setting up Guantanamo-like prisons on reservations. If it was legally possible, they probably would have done it already.
But the flip side of that is that tribal sovereignty can't protect government actions; as the superior power both Constitutional rules and international treaties would remain in force.
(I can't work out what's up with the Inslaw case. Tribal territory definitely doesn't legalize CIA arms deals, so there isn't even a motive for a conspiracy like that. But even Wikipedia suggests that case could "drive a sane man to madness".)
I'm sort of baffled by this. Kagama found that the US has plenary authority over tribes; they aren't sovereign states with regard to the US governmen. As far as I can tell that also means violations of federal law - even by the government - can't be shielded by tribal law no matter where they happen.
I know you're not endorsing the conspiracy, but is there any chance you could clarify how this legal dodge was alleged to work?
One version was that the Cabazon immunity
> made it feasible to pursue on the reservation the development and/or manufacture of materials whose development or manufacture would be subject to stringent controls off the reservation.
- from Michael Riconosciuto's affidavit in the Inslaw case, which can be found at http://www.larsschall.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Riconos...
The claims in this document were elaborated in various ways through the 90s and beyond by all shades of conspiracy-inclined folk, and I wouldn't put too much stock in any particular thing Riconosciuto says, let alone the elaborations of others, though the literature flowing from his various claims remains interesting to me personally.
Still doesn't sound correct, but then again everything I'm finding about the Inslaw case says it's an absolute maze of craziness, in both the official version and the conspiracies.
Thanks for some fun reading on a weird corner of history!
Yeah, it would make a great basis for a movie / miniseries / 7 season flagship TV drama blockbuster.. ;)
The really weird thing about it, I guess, is that in the original Inslaw complaint an actual judge actually ruled in an actual court case that the actual frickin' Justice Department illegally obtained software by "trickery fraud and deceit!"
Anyway, muckrock.com has some sober and very well sourced and informed reading on the topic - the pages I linked are a sample of that - but of course it's the wilder end that would provide the best subplots in an adaptation.
That whole thing is still super relevant.
In practical terms, addressing your question, if tribes keep trying to sell their sovereignty like this Congress can pass a law removing their sovereign immunity with respect to patents. And, in fact, moves have already started in that direction:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-allergan-patents-congress...
The tribes would probably be wise to knock this behavior off as it's almost certainly going to result in pieces of their sovereignty being carved away, because everyone seems to agree that this sort of scheme is an absurd abuse.
They are immune from state prosecution, so if they operate at a level below whatever the federal authorities care about, it’s lower risk.
Wanna back that one up with some statistics?
> They are immune from state prosecution, so if they operate at a level below whatever the federal authorities care about, it’s lower risk.
Well, not quite. It really depends on what you are talking about. Besides, NA preying on NA is often ignored, but don't screw with the non-NA because then you get the Feds and State cooperating.
Smuggling, drug trafficking, and other things are common problems. It’s vicious and tragic cycle often driven by poverty and neglect. Many of these root issues are compounded by awful healthcare and other policies.
It kills me to think people want US government healthcare after seeing what the government provides on reservations. I guess they figure since they would be serving "white folks" then it would be better. That also leaves a bad taste in my mouth (which had 3 operations because of a botched root canal).
It'll actually be most interesting to see how this might ultimately affect other entities that have been using it, such as State Universities. This ruling didn't specifically address that, as usual courts like to stay specific to the case. But in their final paragraph CAFC clearly acknowledged the parallels with other cases, and it's hard to see how the same logic of this ruling wouldn't apply to any other such entity too.
It's hard to say, as State sovereign immunity is a Constitutional guarantee (11th Amendment) and thus in principle less subject to Congressional whim than the sovereignty of any other entity, when it comes to application of US law by US courts.
We've already seen contracts widely used as a way to dissolve the sovereignty of US states and bypass their laws.
Contracts are enforced at the state level (not the federal level), so I'd like to know what cases you're referring to here?
Related to the article, if a company was a legit tribal company and not just fictionally owned/run by the tribe, would this ruling still make sense? Or does it only hold if a non-tribal company is trying to use the tribe to skirt laws?
I'm not from the U.S., what kind of actions could the U.S. government take?