That case involved a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which gave the State of Maine permitting authority, under the Clean Water Act and MICSA, with regard to discharge of pollutants into territorial waters of the Penobscot Nation and Passamaquoddy Tribe, but exempted two Tribal-owned facilities from the State's permitting program. Despite a detailed Opinion Letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior supporting the Tribe's claims, the court upheld the State’s authority to regulate all of the disputed sites, including the two tribal-owned sites located on tribal lands which the EPA had found to have insignificant consequences for non-members of the tribes.

Former employees of the Micmacs filed complaints with the Maine Human Rights Commission alleging violations of their rights under state law. In response, the Micmacs contended that they possess inherent sovereign rights to control their internal tribal matters. According to the Tribe, employment decisions are a function of tribal government not subject to state regulation. The First Circuit concurred with the State’s argument that MICSA 25 USCS §1725(a) applies to the Micmacs.

In 1982, the Penobscot Nation filed for injunctive relief asserting in part that MIA Section 6206(1) protects against State interference in internal tribal matters. The Court rejected the Penobscot Nation argument. As a result, the State view that the Penobscot Nation beano operation was subject to State law under 30 MRSA §6204 prevailed.

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.

This is the federal Settlement Act as it appears in the United States Code. It includes two later amendments related to the Aroostook Band of Micmacs and the Houlton Band of Maliseets. The Settlement Act as it was passed in 1980 is included in this section of the Library under the heading, "(Federal) Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980." The amendments relating to the Micmacs and the Maliseets may also be found seperately in this section of the Library.

This is the Maine Act that implemented the federal Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980. The Maine Act often is referred to as the "Implementing Act," distinguishing it from the federal Act, often referred to as the "Settlement Act." The federal Act may be found in this section of the Library under either of two titles: (Federal) Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 [Act as originally passed] or (Federal) Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act [Act with amendments relating to the Aroostook Band of Micmacs and the Houlton Band of Maliseets.]

This is the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act as it was passed in 1980. The Settlement Act with later amendments relating to the Aroostook Band of Micmacs and the Houlton Band of Maliseets may be found in this section of the Library under the title, "(Federal) Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act." The amendments concerning the Micmacs and Maliseets may also be found separately in this section of the Library.

According to a press release, dated December 5, 2022, from the Harvard Kennedy School, the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development released a research report documenting the costs to the Wabanaki Nations in Maine—Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscot—and to Maine’s non-tribal citizens of the non-application of federal Indian laws that promote Indian self-determination and self-governance. In an attempt to help address this issue, earlier this year, Rep. Jared Golden introduced HR 6707, a bill to amend the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act so that the Wabanaki tribes can benefit from future federal laws that generally apply to 570 other federally recognized tribes. The measure was ultimately added on to another bill and passed the House with bipartisan support. It awaits action in the Senate.

This report presents archival research on and analysis of the drafting of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA), a federal law enacted in October 1980 to settle land claims brought by the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Indian Nation.

This booklet is a compilation of materials presented to the participants of the Roundtable September 19, 2016.

Paul D. Stern's, Chief, Litigation Division, Maine Office of the Attorney General, reply to Carol Woodcock, State Office Representative to US Senator Susan Collins, on whether an amendment to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act would apply to the Wabanaki Tribes.

Paul Bisulca, MITSC Chairman, Paul Thibeault, Pine Tree Legal Assistance Attorney, and MITSC Executive Director John Dieffenbacher-Krall address the Maine Legislature in the Senate Chambers about the state of Wabanaki-Maine relations.

Former employees of the Maliseets filed complaints with the Maine Human Rights Commission alleging violations of their rights under state law. In response, the Maliseets contended that they possess inherent sovereign rights to control their internal tribal matters. According to the Tribe, employment decisions are a function of tribal government not subject to state regulation. The First Circuit concurred with the State’s argument that MICSA 25 USCS §1725(a) applies to the Maliseets.

MITSC Chairman Paul Bisulca, Pine Tree Legal Assistance Attorney, and John Dieffenbacher-Krall, MITSC Executive Director, address legislators and staff gathered in the Maine House of Representatives.

Three paper corporations sued the Penobscot Nation and Passamaquoddy Tribe seeking documents under the Maine Freedom of Access Act. The Court had to decide whether the Maine Freedom of Access Act, 1 M.R.S.A. §§ 401-410 (1989 & Supp. 2000), which is ordinarily applicable to municipalities and other components of state government, is applicable to the Penobscot Nation and the Passamaquoddy Tribe. The Court found that when the Tribes are engaged in the deliberative processes of self-governance, the Maine Freedom of Access Act does not apply due to 30 MRSA §6206(1). Conversely, the Court decided when the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation act in their municipal capacity “with persons or entities other than their tribal membership, such as the state or federal government, the Tribes may be engaged in matters that are not ‘internal tribal matters.’”

A review, pursuant to a Legislative Resolve, of how the civil laws of Maine affect the ability of Indian Tribes to regulate their members, lands, schools, cultural institutions, and communities in ways that honor tribal traditions.

Fellencer was an employment case where the Maine Superior Court ruled that employment matters did not fall under the internal tribal matters provisions of the MIA. On January 19, 1999, Fellencer was reversed on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, and the case was remanded for the entry of judgment (reversed) in favor of the Penobscot Indian Nation.

Pursuant to Resolves 1997, Chapter 45, the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC)is authorized and directed to undertake a systematic review of the civil laws of the State of Maine over a period of four years. The purpose of the review is to determine the manner and extent to which these laws, as enforced, constrict or impinge upon the best interests of children with respect to the: - Traditional culture and way of life as practiced in tribal communities; - Ability of the Tribes to regulate their members, lands, schools, and other cultural institutions and communities in a manner that honors tribal traditions; and - Respect and dignity appropriately given to all individual citizems in the State and members of the Tribes.

Thirteen Passamaquoddy fishers were charged with harvesting marine resources without a license and other offenses. The Passamaquoddy Tribe hired an attorney to defend the Passamaquoddy fishers charged in June of 1997 and the 13 cases were joined into one: State v. Beal. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction over Passamaquoddy Tribe fishers. That motion to dismiss was rejected by District Court Judge John Romei.

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.

Resolves 1997, Chapter 45 (LD 1269) tasked the MITSC to undertake a systematic review of the civil laws of the State of Maine over a period of four years. The purpose of the review is to determine the manner and extent to which these laws, as enforced, constrict or impinge upon the best interests of children with respect to the: - Traditional culture and way of life as practiced in tribal communities; - Ability of the Tribes to regulate their members, lands, schools, and other cultural institutions and communities in a manner that honors tribal traditions; and - Respect and dignity appropriately given to all individual citizens in the State and members of the Tribes.

In 1996, the Passamaquoddy Tribe brought suit against the State of Maine on gaming (Passamaquoddy v. State of Maine 75 F.3d 784 (1996)) (Addendum 8). The Tribe argued that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (enacted after Stilphen and in the wake of Cabazon) opened the door for Tribal gaming in Maine and compelled the State to compact with the Tribe. The Court found that section 1735(b) was a valid "savings clause" that precluded application of Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in Maine unless Congress specifically made it applicable in Maine. The Court concluded that the text of IGRA gave no indication that Congress intended to make that Act specifically applicable within Maine.

Created as part of the settlement, the Commission is required to review its effectiveness and the relationship between the State and the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Indian Nation. The Commission hopes that this report will promote greater understanding of the issues and deeply held beliefs that shape today's debates about tribal-state relations.

This is the 1991 addition to the federal Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act relating to the Aroostook Band of Micmacs. The entire federal Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act also may be found in this section of the Library.

This is the 1986 addition to the federal Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act relating to the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians. The entire federal Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act also may be found in this section of the Library.

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.

The legislation generated by the Task Force on Tribal-State Relations created in 1996. It directed MITSC to 1) review the civil laws of the State of Maine to determine the manner and extent to which those laws, as enforced, constrict or impinge upon the best interests of children with respect to: traditional culture and way of life as practiced in tribal communities; the ability of tribes to regulate their members, lands, schools and other cultural institutions and communities; and the respect and dignity appropriately given to all individual citizens in the state and members of the tribes; 2) conduct the study over a period of 4 years notably considering in part the concerns that gave rise to the bill proposed by the Passamaquoddy Tribe to rescind section 6204 of the MIA; 3) report its findings 12/15/97, 12/15/98, and 12/15/00; and 4) convene an Annual Assembly of Governors and Chiefs;

This is the Maine Settlement Act relating to Micmac Indians in Maine. The federal Settlement Act may be found in this section of the Library under either of two titles: (Federal) Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act or (Federal) Aroostook Band of Micmacs Settlement Act. This statutory proposal was not ratified by the Aroostook Band and did not take effect.