Abstract
After the US Supreme Court decision to uphold the Indian Child Welfare Act, I ask the question: Do states use amici briefs to advance state rights and limit Native sovereignty in Indigenous cases, and if so, how? My State Imposition Theory suggests that state amici briefs submitted to the Court in Indian law cases aim to restrict Native sovereignty and advance state control over tribal lands, people, and resources. States view Native sovereignty as a threat to state sovereignty and impose their beliefs onto Indian law cases. Using a logit model followed by a structural topic model, I find state amici are the least likely to support the Native interest and consist of topics related to the advancement of state rights and limitation of Indigenous sovereignty. My findings contribute to Indigenous and judicial politics scholarship by providing a new approach to understanding the co-related topics of judicial behavior and colonialism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
