Justice Scalia's Dissent in Windsor; why all should study Indian law:

[Panich52]

I was reading Justice Scalia's dissent in Windsor the other night and came across a statement that was wrong in regard to whether the Court had decided a previous case in which the plaintiff and defendant were not adverse.  There is a very clear example from federal Indian law that contradicted his statement that the Court has never decided such a case, yet no one, as far as I could tell, cited it in the briefs or in any of the opinions.  This experience reminded me how important Indian law is, even for those who don't practice or teach it.

Yet, in Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968), ...

This could have been an incredibly useful case for the majority opinion (and the plaintiff's argument), and knowing about it and distinguishing it could have strengthened Justice Scalia's dissent, but apparently it was on no one's radar, which demonstrates I think just how marginalized federal Indian law is.

Justice Scalia, for his part, has, at least in the past, controversially suggested that he doesn't need to decide Indian law cases based on precedent, so perhaps there is little reason, in his view, for him to be well-versed in the precedents. ...

But Windsor is evidence of why federal Indian law is important, even if you don't expect to teach it, practice it, or decide cases based on it.  It relates to other areas. ...

And that's just the beginning.  There's also the fact that federal Indian law is incredibly interesting in it's own right, and it provides important insight into our government and society.  Felix Cohen, the primary architect of the field, once explained:  "'Like the miner's canary, the Indian marks the shifts from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere; and our treatment of Indians . . . reflect[s] the rise and fall in our democratic faith."  ...

More
http://bit.ly/NgCfSt