Public Health Issues Concerning American Indian and Non-Indian Uranium Millworkers
7
Citation
11
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
Abstract An exploratory study of 170 former American Indian (83) and non-Indian (87) uranium millworkers who worked in six mills was conducted in the southwestern United States. It was found that over 80 percent of the former millworkers felt they were not informed about the hazards of radiation during their employment and a majority reported respiratory diseases or symptoms. Study findings include a comparison of Indian and non-Indian perceptions of mill working conditions and self-reported health histories. The Indians have not been studied previously as a distinct group and, given their low smoking incidence, an epidemiologic study is warranted. Issues related to adequate diagnoses of workers' health problems are presented.Keywords:
Exploratory research
Indian country
Twenty-First Century
Indian Law is full of jurisdictional traps for the unwary. This article proposes a solution to address one such trap that has caused harm to Indian tribes. When a non-Indian commits a crime in Indian country, he or she must be prosecuted in federal court. State courts lack jurisdiction over the case, absent statutory authority to the contrary. The Supreme Court held in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe that tribal courts do not have the authority to punish non-Indians for crimes committed in Indian country. The reality is, however, that many U.S. attorneys do not have the resources or inclination to fully prosecute crimes in Indian country. This article proposes a practical solution to this problem: deputization of Indian lawyers as Special Assistant United States Attorneys to prosecute these crimes in federal court.
Indian country
Tribe
Federal court
Criminal jurisdiction
Federal jurisdiction
Cite
Citations (0)
The paper announces the imminent availability of a major extension of the well-known Bateman-Foust sample. This new resource will contain linked agricultural and population census data between 1850 and 1880 for thousands of individuals in an expanded group of townships including some from the Pacific Coast states and Massachusetts and has in excess of 220,000 person-observations. The paper discusses a number of problems and complications associated with the creation of this retrospective panel database. It also shows how these data may be linked to other computer-searchable databases and resources (such as land records) and discusses the impact of per? sonal and family characteristics on persistence and the likelihood of record linkage within the sample townships using a panel from a completed subsection of the project.
Twenty-First Century
Cite
Citations (5)
Journal Article Carl J. Ekberg. Stealing Indian Women: Native Slavery in the Illinois Country. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 2007. Pp. xvi, 236. $38.00 Get access Carl J. Ekberg. Stealing Indian Women: Native Slavery in the Illinois Country. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 2007. Pp. xvi, 236. $38.00. Sherry L. Smith Sherry L. Smith Southern Methodist University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Historical Review, Volume 113, Issue 3, June 2008, Pages 823–824, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.113.3.823 Published: 01 June 2008
Indian country
Native american
Cite
Citations (0)
In the United States, much of the litigation arising involving Indian tribes and territories revolves around one issue: jurisdiction. Because of the complex inter-weaving of tribal, federal, and state (including county governments and municipalities) jurisdiction in United States Indian country, it can be difficult to determine which entity or entities have the authority to adjudicate a particular case or controversy. Indeed, even the term Indian Country, as used here, has been subject to much dispute. In the criminal arena, the intersection of tribal, state and federal jurisdiction is particularly problematic. For our nation's co-existing criminal justice systems to operate as efficiently as possible, it is imperative that all individuals working in or with criminal justice systems in Indian country have an understanding of the jurisdictional rules that apply to criminal offenses occurring in United States Indian country. The purpose of this article is to provide a framework for determining which governmental authority has jurisdiction over a specific crime committed in Indian country as a guide for anthropologists and practitioners working with Native Americans.
Criminal jurisdiction
Indian country
Adjudication
Federal jurisdiction
Universal jurisdiction
Cite
Citations (2)
The historical development of the concepts of Indian Country and Tribal self-government, when combined with the socio-economic condition of Indian tribes and Indian country counsel that non-Indian governments both state and federal hesitate before attempting to enforce federal or state employment laws to the employer-employee relationship within Indian country.In this context, this article considers the historical development of the concept of Indian country in its tripartite form of Indian reservations, Indian allotments, and dependent Indian communities. It further considers the classical understanding of tribal self-government, and the use of the Indian commerce clause and developing theories of tribal sovereignty as a measure of when tribal jurisdiction over such issues should be respected.
Indian country
Tribe
Indian culture
Cite
Citations (1)
Public health law
Tribute
Global Health
Millennium Development Goals
Cite
Citations (2)
Recent federal policy toward Indian tribes is closely aligned with what Indians want for themselves—self-determination. But the maze of tribal, state, and federal jurisdiction in Indian country creates a great obstacle to self-government and economic self-sufficiency. Many commentators have discussed the United States’ Rube Goldberg approach to jurisdiction, wherein the simple is made complex. A recent Supreme Court case and a federal district court’s reliance upon it may have added yet another twist to the approach to jurisdiction. Both cases involve the revenue-generating enterprise that has achieved nearly across-the-board success in Indian country, but which has generated the greatest wrath toward Indians from the non-Indian community since Custer’s Last Stand: gambling. These cases also involve the imposition of non-tribal laws, especially state, in Indian country.
In California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed tribal sovereignty, ruling that California’s bingo and card game laws are regulatory in nature and thus have no effect on reservations within the state. In contrast, the federal district court in Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Hodel infringed upon tribal sovereignty by ruling that New Mexico’s parimutuel wagering and dog racing laws are prohibitory in nature; therefore, the state could regulate gambling on reservations within New Mexico.
In 1953, Public Law 280 was enacted by Congress to give certain states greater power to control crime on Indian lands. The critical distinction between Cabazon and Santa Ana is that California is subject to Public Law 280 while New Mexico is not. Cabazon confirmed that states which assumed jurisdiction over Indian country under Public Law 280 may enact “prohibitory” laws to address crime, but in most cases may not extend the reach of state “regulatory” laws to reservations.
The Cabazon prohibitory/regulatory (pro/reg) test for the validity of state law extensions seems appropriate for Public Law 280 states like California. However, New Mexico has never been granted jurisdiction over Indian country within its borders. The troubling aspect of Santa Ana is that the district court relied on Cabazon to grant New Mexico jurisdiction on two distinct bases—the federal Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA) and state public policy—to achieve essentially the same infringement on tribal sovereignty that Public Law 280 effected earlier. The danger to tribes of courts applying ACA and state public policy to Indian country is that non-Public Law 280 states could apply their criminal laws to reservations to fill in gaps in the federal criminal code, thereby permitting these states to outlaw gambling.
This Comment will examine closely the interplay between the analyses in Cabazon and Santa Ana and other lower court decisions addressing Indian sovereignty. This Comment contends that ACA and state public policy should not apply in Indian country, that the reasons courts have used to apply them are flawed, and that any perceived gap in criminal laws in Indian country is already filled by the Indian Crimes Acts. Assuming, arguendo, that ACA and the Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA) apply to Indian country, this Comment notes that neither of these Acts, nor the reasons for applying them, provide a sound basis to invoke the pro/reg distinction.
The Santa Ana court’s interpretation of Cabazon constitutes a new movement of judicial activism in the federal Indian law arena. It may resurrect the now-disfavored termination era policy underlying Public Law 280 and result in sweeping abrogations of tribal sovereignty. This trend contradicts the federal policy of tribal self-government, the canon of statutory construction that any abrogation of Indian rights must be done expressly by Congress, the intent of ACA, and the existing statutory framework which determines what laws apply in Indian country.
Ironically, Indians initially viewed Cabazon as a great victory. Upon closer inspection, however, Cabazon may have provided the impetus the Santa Ana court needed to apply ACA to Indian country. Thus far, Cabazon and Santa Ana have been interpreted as authority for applying ACA in Indian country by Congress, law enforcement agencies, and even the Department of Interior, which is charged with administering the United States’ trust responsibility to the tribes. Typifying this new construction is a letter from a United States Attorney to an Indian tribe, in which the federal official declared: “If the state law is prohibitory, the Assimilative Crimes Act will apply. If regulatory, it will not. The most recent case in point which has an excellent analysis is Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Hodel.
Indian country
Federal jurisdiction
Criminal jurisdiction
Cite
Citations (3)
Indian country
Cite
Citations (0)
Journal Article Stealing Indian Women: Indian Slavery in the Illinois Country Get access Stealing Indian Women: Indian Slavery in the Illinois Country. By Ekberg Carl J.. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2007. xvi + 236 pp. Illustrations, maps, tables, notes, index. $38.00.) Sakina Mariam Hughes Sakina Mariam Hughes Michigan State University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Western Historical Quarterly, Volume 40, Issue 1, Spring 2009, Pages 84–85, https://doi.org/10.1093/whq/40.1.84 Published: 01 February 2009
Indian country
Cite
Citations (0)