Abstract: Federal-tribal consultation is one of the only mechanisms available to American Indian and Alaska Native communities to provide input on federal management decisions impacting their subsistence lands and resources. While the policies of many federal agencies “require” consultation, agencies routinely approach consultation as a procedural checklist rather than a two-way dialogue for receiving, considering, and incorporating tribal needs and concerns. Substantive failure to consult is particularly harmful for Alaska Native communities that rely heavily on subsistence resources yet lack treaties to enforce hunting and fishing rights. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) contains a “rural priority” provision that expressly protects hunting and fishing rights for rural Alaskan residents, but agency policies have consistently failed to enforce this priority through consultation. This Comment harnesses two federal statutes—provisions of Public Laws 108-199 and 108-447— as means of enforcing ANILCA’s rural priority to better protect Alaska Native subsistence resources. It also proposes solutions for how federal legislation can better enforce consultation procedures and promote tribal sovereignty and self-determination.
Abstract: Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil suits for discretionary actions, as long as the violated right is not clearly established. A right is deemed established when every reasonable…
Read More
Abstract: The widespread acceptance of electric scooters has transformed the landscape of urban transportation. Yet, the emerging phenomenon of intoxicated scootering poses unanswered questions of liability and accountability. New research…
Read More
Abstract: Pedestrian fatality rates in the United States are markedly high compared to peer nations and are on the rise. The distribution of these deaths shows an alarming racial gap:…
Read More