tannerallread.bsky.social
Milanovich Fellow, UCLA Law | Ph.D. Candidate in History, Stanford | J.D., Stanford Law | Indian Law Scholar and Legal Historian | Okie | Chahta | Queer | he/him/his
34 posts
4,958 followers
255 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I knew this was going to be bad from the 8-page intro alone. For the sake of my sanity, I’m going to wait to read this until I have the time and space to be constantly incredulous and angry.
comment in response to
post
Congrats, Alex!! A well-deserved placement for an exciting project!
comment in response to
post
Congratulations!! 🎉
comment in response to
post
Yeah, I’m from Union City, a tiny farm town 40 minutes west of Norman. Enjoy the sun before some freak blizzard or random tornado comes along 😎
comment in response to
post
The Teach-In is such a fun event! Enjoy!
comment in response to
post
I mean I’m more upset at the DOJ lawyers for relying on such an outdated and irrelevant case, but it would also be nice for these reporters to actually talk to someone who knows something about Natives before they publish such silly stories.
comment in response to
post
Wishing you the best on whatever comes next, Holly!
comment in response to
post
Thanks for including me, Karen!
comment in response to
post
And I'm so stoked to get to work alongside and be mentored by some amazing scholars in the Native law space who I have long admired: Angela Riley, Lauren van Schilfgaarde, @ksuenamu.bsky.social, and Mica Llerandi. Very much looking forward to this next step in my academic journey!
comment in response to
post
I’m honored!
comment in response to
post
Thanks @unlawfulentries.bsky.social!! Your endorsement of it means a lot to me! ☺️
comment in response to
post
Thank you, Holly!!
comment in response to
post
Thanks, Evan!
comment in response to
post
And thanks most of all to my partner Josh Stickney who has been a constant supporter throughout the long journey that this article took and the long academic journey I’ve embarked on! 💜 12/12
comment in response to
post
Many of these people haven’t made it to the Good Place yet, but thanks to Greg Ablavsky, Liz Reese, Alison LaCroix, Dylan Hedden-Nicely, K-Sue Park, Jonathan Gienapp, Kathryn Olivarius, Jennifer Burns, @gauthamrao.bsky.social, and the Columbia student editors for all their feedback! 11/12
comment in response to
post
And thanks most of all to my partner Josh Stickney, who has been a constant supporter throughout the long journey that this article took and the long academic journey I’ve embarked on! 💜 12/12
comment in response to
post
law to constrain the power of minority communities and the rights of many Americans. I have no doubt that Native nations will continue to survive and thrive, but I hope this article contributes in some way to providing them the legal space to do it. 10/12
comment in response to
post
Overall, I hope this article provides a historical and legal case for why these state supremacy arguments are wrong in the context of Indian Law and spurs other scholars to consider how the Court and states are reviving long-rejected federalism arguments in many areas of the 9/12
comment in response to
post
Ultimately, I argue that Castro-Huerta and the state supremacy theory contradict the original understanding of the Constitution and current Indian Affairs policy, promote a false history of Indian Law, and perpetuate the racism and violence of the Removal era. 8/12
comment in response to
post
for the first time in over 200 years, that states have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country. And even though the case impacted federal power, its statements about state power pose a significant threat to Native nations. 7/12
comment in response to
post
But it wasn’t until Castro-Huerta that the state supremacy arguments finally became law as the Court stated that states have jurisdiction over all their territory, including Indian Country, and it used this principle, as well as an array of state supremacy arguments, to hold 6/12
comment in response to
post
I also show how the Marshall Court rejected the theory in the foundational Indian Law case of Worcester v. Georgia. But the case didn’t stop Removal or the state supremacy arguments. I argue that these arguments persisted in late 19th and early 21st century Indian Law cases. 5/12
comment in response to
post
I show how this theory arose from the era of southern Indian Removal in the 1820s and 30s as states sought to claim jurisdiction over Native peoples and lands and eradicate Native sovereignty within their borders. 4/12
comment in response to
post
This theory comprises three tenets: (1) State territorial jurisdiction is absolute; (2) tribal sovereignty is nonexistent; and (3) federal power is a limited yet valuable asset for upholding state authority against internal threats, namely tribal power. 3/12
comment in response to
post
A short thread on what I do in this article 🧵: Taking the Court’s disastrous decision in the 2022 case of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta as a starting point, I argue that a theory of state supremacy has long persisted in Federal Indian Law. 2/12
comment in response to
post
Thank you, Anna! Excited to reconnect with the community on here!