First Nations Journal

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power “regulate Commerce with Foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”.  This is the primary source of the federal government authority over Indian affairs, including Indian treaty trust responsibility Indian education provided to Indian beneficiary students at Haskell Indian Nations University HINU).   

The proposed legislations of the Haskell Indian Nations University Improvement Act and the Indian Boarding School Policies Act (S.761) are rooted in constitutional law and Indian treaty trust responsibility and obligation to Indian beneficiaries.  The two proposed legislations are ‘acts of Congress and developed with meaningful consultation with Indian beneficiaries.  Executive Orders of the President do not govern Indian treaty federal trust responsibility to Indian beneficiaries.  Indian treaty law and policy including Indian education is based on inherent sovereignty.  Indian beneficiaries of Indian education trust responsibility are a political status not a racial group or ethnicity.      

The HINU Improvement Act legislation proposed by Senator Moran (R-KAN and Representative Mann (R-KAN) fulfills the purpose of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (P.L. 93-638).  The Public Law 93-638 eliminates paternalism and gives greater control and authority to Indian beneficiaries in Indian education at Haskell. 

The HINU Improvement Act is partnership power with Haskell students, not ‘power over Indian self-determination.  The paternalism practiced at Haskell and the Bureau of Indian Education breach of trust fiduciary violations at Haskell prompted the HINU Improvement Act legislation.    

Qualitative research and data in Indian affairs are a focus of the Haskell Indian Nations University Improvement Act and the Indian Boarding School Policies Act (S,.761) as proposed by Senator Jerry Moran (R-KAN), Representative Tracey Mann (R-KAN), Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).  Research and data are essential for higher quality in university education at Haskell Indian Nations University.     

Key aspects of the federal government’s trust responsibility: 

Treaty and Trust Responsibilities to Native American tribes are rooted in U.S. federal law and history, and they define the unique government-to-government relationship between tribes and the United States. Here’s a clear breakdown:

1. Treaty Obligations

• Historical Treaties: From the late 18th century through the 19th century, the U.S. signed hundreds of treaties with Native American tribes. These treaties often involve:
  • Land cessions by tribes.
  • Guarantees of certain rights (e.g., hunting, fishing, self-government).
  • Promises of federal support (education, healthcare, infrastructure).
• Legal Status: Treaties are considered the supreme law of the land under the U.S. Constitution (Article VI). Even though treaty-making ended in 1871, existing treaties remain legally binding unless explicitly abrogated by Congress.

2. Trust Responsibility

• Definition: The U.S. government has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of tribes and their members. This stems from treaties, statutes, and court decisions.
• Key Components:
  • Protection of Tribal Lands and Resources: The federal government manages tribal lands and natural resources to ensure they are preserved and used for the benefit of tribes.
  • Provision of Services: Includes healthcare (Indian Health Service), education, and economic development.
  • Advocacy and Support: Federal agencies must consult with tribes on policies that affect them.

3. Modern Interpretation

• Self-Determination Era: Since the 1970s, federal policy emphasizes tribal sovereignty and self-governance while still honoring trust obligations.
• Agencies Involved: Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Indian Health Service (IHS), and others carry out these responsibilities.

Why It Matters

These obligations are not just historical, they continue to shape federal programs, funding, and legal decisions today. Failure to uphold them can lead to lawsuits and significant policy implications.

Here’s a concise summary of the key U.S. Supreme Court cases that define the trust and treaty obligations to Native American tribes:

1. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)

• Key Holding: Tribes are not foreign nations but “domestic dependent nations.”
• Impact: Established the concept of a trust relationship, where the U.S. acts as a guardian to tribes.

2. Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

• Key Holding: States cannot impose laws on tribal lands; only the federal government has authority.
• Impact: Reinforced tribal sovereignty and the federal government’s exclusive role in tribal affairs.

3. United States v. Kagama (1886)

• Key Holding: Congress has plenary power over tribes.
• Impact: Expanded federal authority but also affirmed the government’s duty to protect tribes.

4. Seminole Nation v. United States (1942)

• Key Holding: The U.S. has a moral and legal obligation to act with the highest fiduciary standards toward tribes.
• Impact: Cemented the idea of a fiduciary duty in managing tribal resources and funds.

5. Morton v. Mancari (1974)

• Key Holding: Employment preferences for Native Americans in the Bureau of Indian Affairs are constitutional.
• Impact: Recognized that federal obligations to tribes are political, not racial, in nature.

6. United States v. Mitchell (1983 & 1985)

• Key Holding: The government can be held liable for mismanagement of tribal resources under trust responsibility.
• Impact: Strengthened enforceability of fiduciary duties.

7. McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020)

• Key Holding: Reservation boundaries remain unless explicitly disestablished by Congress.
• Impact: Reaffirmed treaty rights and tribal jurisdiction over large areas.

Big Picture

These cases collectively:

• Define tribes as sovereign entities with a unique relationship to the federal government.
• Establish that the U.S. has both legal and moral trust obligations.
• Confirm that treaties remain binding unless Congress clearly says otherwise.

In honoring constitutional and Indian treaty law, the Congress will establish Haskell Indian Nations University as the crown jewel of Indian education.  We will look forward to the Honor. 

M’gwitch,🪶

Steve Cadue

Kickapoo Nation Kansas