This Note analyzes hiring preferences on tribal lands in the mining industry within the United States and particularly in the State of Arizona, which has a relatively high number of both mines and federally recognized tribes. Arizona has its own robust history and case law on hiring preferences in the mining industry for tribal members. This Note asserts the efficacy of hiring preferences in increasing employment and improving economies on tribal lands and explains how hiring preferences can be of use moving forward. To establish context, this Note introduces the history of tribal relations regarding land with the federal government, covers the history and current state of mining on tribal lands, and analyzes how hiring preferences are set in a lease or tribal government document. Then, the constitutionality of hiring preferences (particularly regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964) is addressed, along with how tribal constitutions and enactments alike interpret and apply such hiring preferences. This Note also looks at hiring preferences thus far from statistical and economic perspectives. Finally, this Note predicts how hiring preferences might benefit tribes moving forward, particularly with expanding sustainable development and renewable energy.

This Note examines Alaska Native systems of private land ownership as imposed through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and evaluates existing and potential alternatives in the interest of self-determination, sovereignty, and land ownership. ANCSA was passed in 1971 to resolve conflicts over the land in Alaska, and it established a system of tribal corporations which is distinct from the federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States. With few exceptions, Alaska Native tribes do not hold their lands in trust and tribal land in Alaska is not considered “Indian Country.” This distinction from the tribes in the contiguous United States carries administrative, jurisdictional, and environmental consequences. Alaska Native tribal governments are without territorial reach and are severely limited in their authority. Alaska Native villages face additional challenges with regards to subsistence living and environmental considerations due to the extinguishment of native claims through ANCSA. This Note explores aspects of self-determination both retained by and denied to Alaska Native tribes and analyzes the conflicted legacy of ANCSA 50 years after its enactment.

This Note analyzes the emerging, and under-documented litigation field of illegal dumping of electronic waste (e-waste). U.S. federal courts are inadequately prosecuting and failing to provide avenues for both criminal and civil restitution for international victims. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the primary legislation on e-waste recycling, protects only state interests and offers little relief to private actors. Under RCRA, which has both criminal and civil statutes, the exportation of e-waste is lightly monitored and is only scorned under specific circumstances, mainly if the receiving country has not authorized it. Further, most prosecutors elect to bring wire fraud charges under Title 18, the federal Criminal and Criminal Procedure law, rather than RCRA. Therefore, restitution is only granted to companies, not international victims. Using the three major e-waste criminal cases —Executive Recycling, Intercon Solutions, and Total Reclaim— as steppingstones to begin the discussion on international e-waste dumping, this Note demonstrates that victims are only narrowly provided relief, and international victims are virtually unable to seek relief. This Note focuses on administrative action to provide proper prosecutorial direction and critique legislative ignorance of modern environmental issues. In addition, this Note emphasizes international solutions to the growing waste epidemic and discusses how the U.S. can more effectively use these structures to prosecute e-waste smuggling and environmental waste smuggling at large.

After Congress refused to fund the border wall, President Trump declared a national emergency. This allowed him to reprogram funds from other accounts to provide funding for border wall construction. The Ninth Circuit in Sierra Club v. Trump and California v. Trump held that the reprogramming of funds pursuant to sections 8005 and 2808 violated the statutes and posed constitutional problems. However, the Supreme Court issued a stay, which allowed construction to continue. This article analyzes and asserts that the Ninth Circuit decisions were correct. Events at the end of Trump administration are reviewed. After taking office, President Biden cancelled the national emergency and stopped most of the funding for the border wall. President Biden supports the establishment of a virtual border wall. Events during the Biden administration are examined.

Since the 1970s, the term “environmental racism” has become more commonplace in the public sphere and is largely recognized when governments and private industry aim to develop or use land for their own interests at the expense of the health and safety of the communities that reside nearby. This is a positive development in the evolution of dialogue on the environmental impacts on communities of color. Equal attention should also be paid to instances of environmental racism before the term became widely known. One such example is the Superfund site in Tucson, which sits near the city’s majority-minority southside. Federal contractor Hughes Aircraft Co., with the Tucson Airport Authority, spent nearly three decades disposing of a degreaser containing a toxic chemical, trichloroethylene (TCE), which then leaked into the groundwater supply. While this took place largely before the term was coined, a retrospective demonstrates that the release of the TCE, intentional or not, resulted in many residents developing cancer or other illnesses, and falls under the definition of environmental racism. Although the litigation settled over 15 years ago, problems persist in the communities surrounding the Superfund site. In addition to the still ongoing TCE cleanup, a new contaminant, polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), has emerged, brought on by the Air National Guard’s use of firefighting foam, showing up in water wells close to the Tucson Airport Remediation Project (TARP). The state and federal governments have an obligation to act quickly to prevent the spread of PFAS in the water remediation system and avert a repetition of environmental harms on communities of color.

This paper examines the law enforcement response to the 2016 Standing Rock NoDAPL1 protests and evaluates whether this response violated international human rights law. Following an assessment of increasing militarization in U.S. policing, relevant international human rights law doctrine will be discussed. In particular, UN Human Rights declarations prohibit disproportionate armaments in policing, armed response to unlawful but unarmed protests, the deprivation of enumerated human rights, and the use of a hostilities paradigm suited to the battlefield instead of a community-caretaking focused law enforcement paradigm. The militarization at Standing Rock took the form of 76 law enforcement agencies coordinating with military contractors, both armed with less-lethal force to suppress anti-pipeline protests. This paper illustrates that the law enforcement response to the Standing Rock protests was disproportionate and in violation of customary international human rights law norms for policing, including the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), and more broadly in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). These violations eroded relationships between Indigenous people, environmentalists, and the federal government, set a problematic example for foreign and domestic law enforcement departments, and endangered domestic compliance with international human rights law. In order to uphold international law, future police work should be mindful of the potential for international human rights law violation and averse to militarization disproportionate to the risks posed to officers.

This article will examine how tribes can synthesize Indigenous ingenuity and federal selfdetermination policy to strengthen their cultural and political institutions by developing sophisticated solar-based microgrids and leveraging blockchain technology. This article acknowledges that climate change is here to stay and seeks to provide indigenous peoples in the US with innovative community solutions that work toward tribal energy sovereignty (ES) by marrying Indigenous sciences and cultural knowledge with innovative technologies. This article examines some of the creative renewable energy and blockchain systems that Indigenous communities have been using and encourages tribal leaders to consider how such technologies can support one another to strengthen ES. By pragmatically leveraging inherent sovereignty, federal programs, and principles from international law, tribes can exert tribal energy sovereignty by building resilient systems to protect their cultures and economies from the ravages of climate change. Section I clarifies the cultural context of this article and explores the immense importance of traditional cultural values. More specifically, Section I explores traditional Cowlitz practices, my identity as a Cowlitz man as an integral element of this article, and the connections between Cultural Sovereignty and ES3 Section II examines the political and economic realities facing Indian communities seeking to develop renewable energy by briefly exploring Federal Indian Law, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Native nation-building, and the benefits of decentralizing Indian affairs by moving from centralized federal management to decentralized tribal governance. Section III explores solar energy and microgrids generally and briefly explores three remarkable tribal case studies. Section IV explores some of the specific ways that tribes can work toward solar and microgrid-based ES by leveraging cultural values, tribal programs, federal self-determination policy, and NGOs. Section V considers blockchain technologies generally and looks at some innovative ways Indigenous peoples in the US use them. Section VI considers how blockchain can support ES by allowing tribes to develop peer-to-peer (p2p), decentralized, community-energy systems. Section VII shares final conclusions on recommendations. when assessing whether federal law preempts state-law causes of action arising from production, sale, and marketing of fossil fuels.