Tribal Lines Are Blurred A look at the history of the federal Indian Act shows that its roots reach back to the 1780s in a U.S. policy of assimilation and removal. While the federal Indian Act (title 25 of the United States Code, section 231–239) has been amended a number of times, one of its main goals has remained consistent: assimilation and segregation. By the 19th century, with its policies of removal and assimilation, the federal Indian Act had largely brought an end to a number of tribes in the United States and was viewed by many as a failure. The act was revised in 1934, a time of heightened awareness of Native Americans as part of the Great Depression migration to California and an era of Indian termination policies. The new act also removed most federal financial support for Indian tribes. To put the final nail in the coffin of tribal sovereignty, the act was used as legal grounds to relocate all remaining Native Americans off their ancestral lands and reclassify them as private citizens. Since then, the federal Indian Act has become a tool of the federal government to exert authority over Native American communities. Tribal sovereignty has been one of the casualties. Though the law itself is often referred to as “federal Indian law,” it is administered at the local level, which leads to numerous jurisdictional issues and different interpretations of the act. According to the United States Department of Justice, “Federal Indian Law” is The legal regime by which the federal government, as the guardian of tribal governments and tribal trust resources, prescribes tribal–government–to–government relationships for federally recognized tribes and tribal members, and provides for state–tribal–federal relations for federally unrecognized tribes and tribes in states that do not have recognized tribes. The Justice Department’s website also notes that “the federal government has exclusive responsibility for Native American affairs on all federally recognized reservations and in areas that it has held in trust for Indian tribes.” This federal government has increasingly attempted to remove the federal protection from Native Americans in attempts to privatize or otherwise eliminate Native American culture, identity, and land. One of the starkest examples is the relocation of the Kumeyaay people from their homelands in southwestern California to a remote reservation in Fort McDowell, Ariz., following World War II. This act of segregation is cited as one of the main reasons that the United States government’s trust obligations towards Native Americans have largely been eroded in recent years. “Because [a] tribe’s claim of aboriginal right is based on concepts of sovereignty and the public trust doctrine,” writes a team of researchers in the book “The Land is Ours,” “the sovereignty and sovereign trust can only be guaranteed by the United States government.” The act was amended in 1988 as a result of litigation regarding the termination of land title and resources from the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe in Humboldt County, Calif. This “Amended and Restated,” or “2.0” version of the act eliminated most of the federal funding that had come to the federal government as a result of tribal efforts. While some have criticized the act as a mechanism of “colonialism and imperialism,” others see it as an effective tool in regulating and controlling Native American communities. The act continues to be a source of controversy as its legal interpretation has become increasingly inconsistent and arbitrary. “This has become the policy of the United States government,” says attorney Tim Lydon. “I would argue that it’s actually been a success, not a failure.” But is it? Or can it be used in a more positive and productive way? What are the other implications of the law and who are the stakeholders here? In addition to being a professor at the University of California-Riverside, Lydon is also the tribal attorney for the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians and the largest Native American tribe in Southern California. The tribe is comprised of approximately 11,000 members, who live in the unincorporated community of Anza near Yuma, Ariz. Lydon has been involved with the tribe for about 15 years and has worked extensively on issues surrounding the federal Indian Act. In this interview he draws on his expertise in this area to help us understand the present-day controversies surrounding the bill and its effects on Native American identity and community. While Lydon has experience with the act, he believes that local communities need to be informed about what the law is and how it can be affected. “The problem is that these terms, which are not defined in the act, are being bandied around by all these self-interested political groups in Southern California.” The federal Indian Act has been used as a tool to privatize Native American land and culture for some time. What are some of the other ways in which this has happened? The most recent example of this is probably the casino controversy. There have been several times in the last few decades when a group of individuals have used the federal Indian Act as a sword against Native American culture and community. A lot of that goes back to California Indian gaming before it really took off. For a while, California prohibited gaming by tribes and Indian nations. There was a lawsuit challenging this prohibition, and it was finally settled in 2004 with the passage of Proposition 1A. This opened up the gaming industry in California. There have been different factions that fought against gaming. These fights usually involve folks who have a lot of other social agendas and interests, such as the National Rifle Association, private businessmen who want to open up casino gambling, and politicians from the Central Valley who are not from the area and have their own vested interests. There are a lot of issues, but at the end of the day, most of the people are not Native American, so the end result is that an Indian tribe is excluded from the profits from their own land. I guess that’s the worst case scenario. A lot of these groups have been very successful in getting the federal government to do something that is not in the interests of the tribe. When it comes down to these sort of fights, it’s really about who has access to the decision-making table. There’s a lot of money involved, and there’s a lot of political and public pressure. We have seen it used on a lot of tribes as a mechanism to either privatize Indian land or privatize Indian water rights. Can you tell us about a case where this occurred and how the process played out? The most recent example is probably the Pascua Yaqui tribe. In 1998, the tribe had a very good relationship with its members and the community. There were two major corporations involved in the gaming industry that were looking to develop real estate and casino locations near Yuma. The tribe had not taken a position on the matter. This did not sit well with some folks in the community and they wanted to do a deal with the tribe. The tribe took a stance, and there was a huge public and political backlash from Yuma to the southwest. In 1999, the federal government passed the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation and Gaming Act, which made it a violation for a tribe to take a position on land-use decisions that may affect a casino that the tribe is in favor of. It may not necessarily be directly tied to what happened with the Pascua Yaqui tribe, but the federal government’s action certainly had an effect. After that, other things happened, including Proposition 202 and Yuma’s efforts to become a gambling port. In 1999, Prop 202 was passed by voters and Proposition 200 was passed by the Arizona Legislature. So, we went from no casino at all to a vote by the electorate, and then a legislative vote. These decisions were made by local tribes, and ultimately they were not good for the tribe. Ultimately, the tribe was not involved in the negotiations of the compacts and what they had to do to make sure it was legal, and the process that was used. You have experience with the law. How does the law work in your opinion? I have been heavily involved in this issue for years. There are only two people in the United States that can make decisions for a tribe and that has to be under this law and federal regulations. It’s just the way it is. I have been in contact with tribes all over California that have been impacted by this act, and that’s who I help. It’s just an expensive mess for these communities that are trying to move forward. In my opinion, the tribes should control their own destiny, including the land rights of their citizens. But, when you take the land rights out of the equation, things get a little complicated. I am not an expert in federal Indian law, and I really haven’t been in that area since the late 1980s, but I was involved in it then. A lot of the policies were put into place by the Reagan administration. This is a federal policy, and what I do know is that it has been successful to some degree, and it’s definitely a tool in our arsenal that we’ve been using for some time. The problem is, it’s a lot of work to use it properly. This is something that the American people should have a good understanding of because it has some very specific impacts and real world impacts. The government needs to recognize that they are not doing their job. Instead of trying to go after the issue, they should be figuring out how to fix it, how to help, and how to take care of Native