A Jurisdictional Quandary: Challenges Facing Tribal Governments in Implementing the Full Faith and Credit Provisions of the Violence Against Women Acts
Melissa L. Tatum
University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law
Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 90, p. 123, 2001-02
University of Tulsa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-07
Over the last twenty-five years, the Supreme Court has consistently eroded the sovereignty of Indian tribes, largely by limiting their jurisdiction over persons who are not members of the tribe. The Court's decisions have created different sets of jurisdictional rules for tribes, states, and the federal government, resulting in a complex set of rules that is difficult to master even for lawyers who work regularly in Indian law. The full faith and credit requirements of the Violence Against Women Act are a paradigmatic example of the problems stemming from these complicated rulings. The special jurisdictional rules for tribes have tripped up Congress's efforts to create a national blanket of coverage for those individuals holding protection orders. In this article, published in the Kentucky Law Journal, I explore the jurisdictional rules that apply to state and to tribes and examine the impact of those different rules on VAWA's Full Faith and Credit provisions. The article also includes a model tribal code for enforcement of foreign protection orders.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 107
Keywords: Indian law, Native American law, VAWA, domestic violence, protection order, jurisdiction
JEL Classification: K40Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: January 22, 2008 ; Last revised: January 4, 2011
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.422 seconds