Tribal Court Jurisdiction and Public Law 280: What Role for Tribal Courts in Alaska

GPS data from Challenging Mini-satellite Payload (CHAMP) is used for its orbit determination for the epoch day of January 1st 2002.  The orbit of CHAMP is computed from the GPS data and ionospheric effects are removed by frequency combination. Further, the orbits of CHAMP for the same epoch day are computed using the satellite tool kit (STK) employing simplified general perturbations (SGP4) and a high precision orbit propagator (HPOP). Furthermore, orbits computed using GPS data are also compared with jet propulsion laboratory’s published CHAMP spacecraft orbit and we have found that root mean square difference in ECEF position X component is below 0.01km other than some spikes at poles. The standard deviation of the difference in ECEF position X coordinate (JPL results – GPS computed results) is 11.7m. Since JPL computed orbits are considered as true orbits of CHAMP with accuracy of centimeter level (https://gipsy-oasis.jpl.nasa.gov/). Therefore this difference can also be referred as observed error in GPS computed orbits. Considering above discussion, we can expect that accuracy of our computed satellite positions (using GPS data) is about 12 metres for other than poles area. However there are some occasional spikes, especially at poles, having maximum errors (about 0.055 km)

States and Their American Indian Citizens

This article is intended to provide a theoretical framework for tribal advocates seeking to approach state and local governments to discuss cooperation with Indian nations, with a special emphasis on Indian child welfare. While the federal government has a special trust relationship with Indians and Indian nations, Indian people are also citizens and residents of the states in which they live. Thus, states have obligations to Indians as well.This article posits the fairly controversial and novel position that states have obligations to guarantee equal protection to all citizens, including American Indians (and non-Indians) residing in Indian country. In other words, states have an affirmative obligation to ensure that reservation residents, Indian and non-Indian, receive the same services from states that off-reservation residents receive

The Supreme Court\u27s Indian Problem

This Article asserts a new theory about why and how the Supreme Court accepts and decides its Indian law docket: the Court identifies an important constitutional concern embedded in a petition for certiorari, grants certiorari, and then applies its decision- making discretion to decide the important constitutional concern. Once that portion of the Indian law case is decided, the Court decides any remaining federal Indian law questions in order to reach a result consistent with its decision on the important constitutional concern. Indian law disputes are often mere vessels for the Court to tackle larger questions; often these questions have little to do with federal Indian law. And, since Indian law is not as grounded in the Constitution as the other questions, it is more malleable, prone to inconsistencies and unpredictability

2010 Dillon Lecture: Rebooting Indian Law in the Supreme Court

Article published in the South Dakota Law Review