Consultant Stephen Brimley provides an overview and analysis of Native American sovereignty in Maine. The article was originally published in the Fall/Winter 2004 issue of Maine Policy Review, a journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine and Margaret Chase Smith Library in Skowhegan. For online access to the journal readers may go to www.umaine.edu/mcsc/mpr.htm.
Seminal law review article that describes the history and legal arguments that eventually formed the basis for the Maine Indian Land Claims.
American Indian Law Review Volume 35 | Number 2 Nicole Friederichs
This article presents the personal views and recollections of the lead attorney for the State of Maine on the process and negotiations that resulted in enactment of the 1980 Maine Indian Land Claims Settlement of 1980.
For over forty years the Wabanaki people of Maine have had their sovereignty diminished as a result of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA), an arrangement with the state and federal government unlike any other tribal sovereignty arrangement in the Unites States. The MICSA was born from a decades-long debate over land rights and resource rights in Maine, culminating in a “compromise” that avoided political conflict at the expense of Wabanaki sovereignty. Under the MICSA, the Wabanaki do not have sovereign status, instead only holding sovereign control over those matters the state deems “internal tribal matters.” Among the many aspects of self-governance affected by this lack of sovereignty is an inability to exert full autonomous control over natural resources on Wabanaki lands and waters. Renewable energy is an example of one such resource that could provide immense benefits to the Wabanaki people by allowing increased independence from the state and a source of additional income. Through a review and re-interpretation of the MICSA’s history and case law, this Comment seeks to redefine the definition of internal tribal matters to encompass the development of renewable energy projects contained within Wabanaki lands if created with the intent of directly supporting Wabanaki communities. This new test for determining internal tribal matters is then applied to hypothetical utility scale and small-scale renewable projects to determine when the Wabanaki could proceed with development as sovereigns without oversight from the state. This Comment will conclude with a brief discussion of the broader issues inherent in the current status of the Wabanaki under the MICSA with an eye towards a more comprehensive solution and grant of full sovereignty.
"Isolation and Restraint: Maine's Unique Status Outside Federal Indian Law", Maine Law Review, June 2023
BALANCING THE FISHES’ SCALES: TRIBAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL INTERESTS IN FISHING RIGHTS AND WATER QUALITY IN MAINE. Mar 22, 2017 — Vermont Law Review. [Vol. 41:853]
Water, Tribal Claims, and Maine's Not-So-Settled Settlement Acts. ABA Natural Resources & Environment Section, Quarterly Journal, Fall 2016
Mark Chavaree provides a brief discussion of this concept as it applies to Indian tribes generally. The major thrust of this article concentrates on the sovereignty of the Penobscot Nation (hereinafter referred to as the “Nation”), with particular focus on the changes wrought by the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act.
Ms. Shibles is a member of the Penobscot Nation and the Chief Judge of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court and an Appellate justice of the Passamaquoddy Tribal Appellate Court. This is her presentation to the Maine Legislature on the legal concept of sovereignty from the viewpoint of Native Americans.
Donna Loring, Penobscot Nation member and current Penobscot Nation Tribal Representative to the Maine Legislature, Lisa Neuman, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Native American Studies, UMaine, and Laurance Rosen, Professor of Anthropology, Princeton University, provide commentaries on the Brimley article. The commentaries were originally published in the Fall/Winter 2004 issue of Maine Policy Review, a journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine and Margaret Chase Smith Library in Skowhegan. For online access to the journal readers may go to www.umaine.edu/mcsc/mpr.htm.
This article contends that the unusual jurisdictional structure created by the 1980 Settlement was problematic and ineffective from the outset and should be fundamentally amended in accordance with the basic concepts of federal Indian law.
This article describes the importance of Indian Tribes being able to exercise "treatment as a state" status under the Clean Water Act, and the value of collaborative governmental partnerships for water quality management.
This article argued that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to dictate changes to Maine’s water quality standards to protect tribal sustenance rights, regardless of preexisting agreements granting Maine regulatory control over state waters.
This article analyzes the Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision that state courts had no jurisdiction, and the tribal court had exclusive jurisdiction, over an eviction dispute between a tribal member and a tribal housing authority. The Court held that the dispute was an internal tribal matter under the Maine implementing Act.
This article describes the surprisingly limited involvement that Senator Edmund Muskie had in the process that led to the 1980 Land Claims Settlement. The author contends that Muskie's failure to be more involved had important consequences because it allowed more vocal state leaders to shape the rhetoric that would define the controversy long after the case was settled in 1980.
In this historical and legal review the authors contend that for two hundred years a calculated politicolegal regime has driven coercive State policies regarding the Wabanaki Tribes.
This article discusses disputes about regulation of water quality that have arisen under the jurisdictional structure created by the 1980 Settlement legislation.
In the context of the Maine Bicentennial, the author writes that it seems prudent to recall the state’s historical relationship with Indigenous peoples, to acknowledge how deeply that history affects our collective present, to recognize the oppressive systems and structures that continue to define that relationship, and to make the changes required to establish a foundation for a good life for all of us going forward.
This Thesis presents Penobscot perspectives on the original intent, subsequent interpretation, and effectiveness of the Maine Indian Land Claims Setlement of 1980.
Out of the Woods: The Making of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act. AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURE AND RESEARCH JOURNAL 30:4 (2006) 63–97
Maine v. Johnson: A Step in the Wrong Direction. American Indian Law Review, Vol. 32 > No. 2 (2008)
Penobscot Nation v. Mills: First Circuit Dodges the Indian Canon of Construction to Diminish the Water Rights of the Penobscot Nation. Tulane Environmental Law Journal. Vol. 31 No. 1 (2017)
We'd like to know! Please reach out to us here.
I'm looking for a document
