Tanner Allread

Histories of Native American Treaties and Anti-Chinese Violence Win Bancroft Prize

WOW! Congrats to @bethlewwilliams.bsky.social and Emilie Connolly!!! Sharing the Bancroft Prize for their books on anti-Chinese immigration and Native American treaty histories.

www.nytimes.com/2026/03/12/a...

I'm very excited to share that my first law review article, Settler Retrenchment, is forthcoming in the University of Hawaiʻi Law Review! Thanks to many friends, mentors, and colleagues for thoughtful feedback and comments.

Here's the abstract. Draft coming soon to SSRN.

A great example of how tribes can bolster their codes to both take advantage of beneficial changes in federal law and affirm their territorial sovereignty:

I am honored to share our forum on birthright citizenship in Modern American History. This collection features a co-authored introduction and five original research articles—all open access and designed with (under)graduate teaching in mind.
Many thanks to the authors, reviewers, and editor.

Congrats to BART rider and Oakland legend Alysa Liu on winning a gold medal at the Olympics and making the Bay Area proud!

Looking at all the Five Tribes 👀

I have been waiting to post about this new essay until the symposium on my book of which it is a part is published (should be very soon!), but until then, you can check out what I have to say in response to some thoughtful esays.

Deep thanks to @evanbernick.bsky.social for this generous promotion.

Thank you!!

This is so upsetting. The EDGE fellowship was a great support system and provided extra funds for essential research, conference travel, and technology for those of us from underrepresented communities in grad programs. Another blow to those of us trying to change what higher ed looks like.

Congratulations!! So well deserved! 🎉

Congrats on the excellent placement! So excited to dive into this piece!

@jessicashoemaker.bsky.social & @jamesftierney.bsky.social's Article reveals how property, corporate, and securities law are fueling a new rural land grab, turning farmland into a financialized asset. They advance democratic alternatives to protect rural communities and sustainable food systems.

Congrats, Julian!! 🎉

Archaeologists: D.C. Capitol May Have Once Been Used For Legislating WASHINGTON—Calling the discovery the “clearest proof yet” of how the U.S. government was originally designed to function, archaeologists published new evidence Thursday that suggests the Capitol build...

“Thanks to our latest findings, we now know that early citizens of the United States had a more nuanced system of government than previously thought,” said Professor Lee Somers, director of the site excavation

I’m proud to have worked with the Native American Rights Fund on an amicus brief on behalf of Native communities about the difficulties Native communities face when voting by mail: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...

This course looks awesome! Any chance you’d be willing to share the syllabus?

🚨 JOB JOB JOB!!! 🚨
Late-breaking job! Indigenous history at University of Colorado Boulder. Assistant or eatly associate. Been trying to get this line for forever. It’s finally happening 🙏 Great place to live and work. Fabulous colleagues (ask me how I know!) networks.h-net.org/jobs/69637/u...

Yayayayay!! Congrats, Rachel! Can’t wait to read 🎉

Congrats, Grace!!

Congrats!! Looking forward to reading!

Thanks!

Thank you!! And congrats to you on your article prize!

I’m very honored to have received this prize for a paper on Choctaw constitutionalism that has defined much of my early career as a legal historian!

And thanks for the photo @maggieblackhawk.bsky.social!

Congrats, Holly!! This is so well-deserved! 🎉🎉🎉

MUNGIA, J. (concurring)—I concur with the majority’s opinion.1 And yet I dissent. Not from the majority’s opinion, but I dissent from the racism embedded in the federal case law that applies to this dispute. FEDERAL INDIAN LAW IS A PRODUCT OF THE RACIST BELIEFS ENDEMIC IN OUR SOCIETY AND OUR LEGAL SYSTEM While it is certainly necessary to follow federal case law on issues involving Native American tribes and their members, at the same time it is important to call out that the very foundations of those opinions were based on racism and white supremacy. By doing this, readers of our opinions will have no doubt that the current court disavows, and condemns, those racist sentiments, beliefs, and statements.

Since the founding of our country, the federal government has characterized Native Americans as “savages”: They were “uncivilized.” They had little claim to the land upon which they lived. At times, the federal government attempted to eradicate Native Americans through genocidal policies. At other times, the federal government employed ethnic cleansing by forcibly removing children from their parents’ homes to strip them from their culture, their language, and their beings.2 Federal Indian case law arises from those racist underpinnings. The majority correctly cites to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L. Ed. 25 (1831), which is one of the foundational cases involving tribal sovereignty. That opinion is rife with racist attitudes toward Native Americans. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority, describes a tribe’s relationship to the federal government as one of “ward to his guardian.” Id. at 17. In effect, the opinion presents tribal members as children, and the federal government as the adult. That theme would follow in later opinions by the United States Supreme Court—as would the theme of white supremacy. Cherokee Nation began with the premise that Native American tribes, once strong and powerful, were no match for the white race and so found themselves “gradually sinking beneath our superior policy, our arts and our arms.” Id. at 15. The white man was considered the teacher, the Native Americans the pupils:

Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. Id. at 17. This characterization of superior to inferior, teacher to student, guardian to ward, was repeated in later United States Supreme Court opinions. In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903), often characterized as the “American Indian Dred Scott,” 3 the Court used that rationale to justify ruling that the United States could break its treaties with Native American tribes. These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation. They are communities dependent on the United States. Dependent largely for their daily food. Dependent for their political rights. . . . From their very weakness and helplessness . . . there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power. Id. at 567 (quoting United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 383-84, 6 S. Ct. 1109, 30 L. Ed. 228 (1886)). Our court also carries the shame of denigrating Native Americans by using that same characterization: “The Indian was a child, and a dangerous child, of nature, to be both protected and restrained.” State v. Towessnute, 89 Wash. 478, 482, 154 P. 805 (1916), judgment vacated and opinion repudiated by 197 Wn.2d 574, 486 P.3d 111 (2020). 3 See A

Returning to Cherokee Nation, Justice William Johnson’s separate opinion was less tempered in how he considered the various Native American tribes: I cannot but think that there are strong reasons for doubting the applicability of the epithet state, to a people so low in the grade of organized society as our Indian tribes most generally are. Cherokee Nation, 30 U.S. at 21. Native Americans were not to be treated as “equals to equals” but, instead, the United States was the conqueror and Native Americans the conquered. Id. at 23. In discussing Native Americans, Justice Johnson employed another racist trope used by judges both before and after him: Native Americans were uncivilized savages. [W]e have extended to them the means and inducement to become agricultural and civilized. . . . Independently of the general influence of humanity, these people were restless, warlike, and signally cruel. . . . . But I think it very clear that the constitution neither speaks of them as states or foreign states, but as just what they were, Indian tribes . . . which the law of nations would regard as nothing more than wandering hordes, held together only by ties of blood and habit, and having neither laws or government, beyond what is required in a savage state. Id. at 23, 27-28. This same characterization was used by Justice Stanley Matthews in Ex parte KanGi-Shun-Ca (otherwise known as Crow Dog), 109 U.S. 556, 3 S. Ct. 396, 27 L. Ed. 1030 (1883). Justice Matthews described Native Americans as leading a savage life.

Washington Supreme Court Justice Mungia has an extraordinary opinion condemning "the underlying racism and prejudices that are woven into the very fabric" of SCOTUS opinions about Native people.

"We must clearly, loudly, and unequivocally state that was wrong.”
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf...

Congrats!!

Tribal Courts and Constitutions of American Indian Tribes Tribal courts and constitutions shape governance for American Indian tribes, balancing sovereignty with federal law in their unique legal systems. 

NEW: There are 574 federally recognized American Indian tribes in the United States, each with their own unique legal system. @milov-cordobam.bsky.social and Dan Lewerenz provide a brief overview of the tribal courts, law, and constitutions that shape governance for American Indian tribes.

IMO, if Indigenous nations are sovereign, then we are responsible for our mistakes. We cannot hold the United States accountable for the wrongs of history committed against us, but not take account for our wrong of chattel slavery. On the long path of repair, citizenship is only the first step.

This is huge!! A win for Freedmen and another step in the right direction for Native nations upholding treaty rights!