The legal and juridical sovereignty of American Indian nations is supposed to help Native peoples maintain their own distinct political and cultural communities. In the context of environmental issues, this means that tribal governments have both the inherent and statutory right to set their own environmental standards, which have the potential to protect tribal peoples and their natural resources in culturally relevant ways. In the past, the US Supreme Court has sought to curtail this kind of sovereignty when the due process of non-Indians might be hindered. In this article, we look at why tribal environmental sovereignty can and should address the issues of due process in the context of environmental regulation in tribal borders, and make a call for this to be done in a way that supports American Indian tribal sovereignty. Moreover, we connect these issues to the current legal and juridical struggles of other environmental justice groups and the need for more meaningful participation in environmental regulation within the nation-state for all cultural minorities.

otherwise help implement the policy of protecting Native American religious rights and practices, section 2 of AIRFA mandated the President to direct an evaluation by federal agencies of their policies and procedures "in consultation with native traditional religious leaders" and to report the results of this evaluation to Congress.' The resultant American Indian Religious Freedom Act Report 6 describes many actions which were taken by federal agencies to implement the policy of AIRFA as well as other actions that were recommended. Despite the statement of policy and the actions and recommendations to implement the policy, several conflicts involving Indian religious freedom have resulted in litigation. 7 In all of the cases in which Indians have sought access to and protection of 5. 42 U.S.C. § 1996 (Supp. IV 1980). 6. FEDERAL AGENCIES TASK FORCE, AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT REPORT, Pub. L. 95-341 (1979) [hereinafter cited as AIRFA REPORT]. Pursuant to section 2 of AIRFA, the AIRFA Report was to have included recommendations for legislation. None were included, although there were several references to such "recommendations are currently being reviewed within the Administration." Id. at 63, 67, 75, 81. However, no such recommendations have been submitted to Congress. In addition, the AIRFA Report contained several recommendations for "uniform administrative procedure." Id. at 62, 71, 75, 81. These recommendations were formulated into a proposed executive order, which, however, did not reach the President's desk. In response to objections raised within the Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, the Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs returned the proposed executive order to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs with a directive to prepare a report to the Secretary. Memorandum from Philip S. Deloria, Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (Jan. 15, 1981). Although preparation of the report was begun, including correspondence with relevant federal agencies, the report was never completed. In light of the ambivalence demonstrated by the Department's response to the mandate of AIRFA and the inherent conflicts between Indian religious interests and the Department's various missions, should the Congress determine that further administrative review is needed to carry out the policy of AIRFA fully, lead responsibility should be assigned to an agency with less likelihood that its primary missions will interfere with presenting recommendations to the Congress. The United States Civil Rights Commission may be an appropriate agency. 7. Wilson v.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract