Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2025
Abstract
The rule of law requires predictability, and the rules governing Indian country create uncertainty. For example, determining whether a person can be arrested on a reservation depends upon a combination of whether the victim and perpetrators are Indians, the type of crime, and the status of the land where the incident occurred. The same goes for contract enforcement. Even when forum selection and choice of law provisions exist, it can take years to determine whether the dispute should be adjudicated in tribal, state, or federal court. Ambiguity extends to countless other areas, including marijuana legalization and usury caps.
Indian country’s legal uncertainty is a consequence of judicial imperialism. Imperialism is one sovereign imposing its will upon another. The political branches abandoned their past imperial Indian policies in the 1970s, but the Supreme Court continues to impose outside sovereignties upon tribes. Moreover, the post-1970s Supreme Court has abandoned precedents supporting tribal self-governance and devised new theories to strip tribes of sovereign powers. The Supreme Court’s assault on tribal sovereignty has undermined the rule of law in Indian country and constitutes judicial imperialism.
Recommended Citation
Adam Crepelle, Judicial Imperialism: The Supreme Court’s Assault on Tribal Sovereignty and the Rule of Law, 102 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1331 (2025).