In clear and straightforward language, Justin B. Richland and Sarah Deer discuss the history and structure of tribal justice systems; the scope of criminal and civil jurisdictions; and the various means by which the integrity of tribal courts is maintained. This book is an indispensable resource for students, tribal leaders, and tribal communities interested in the complicated relationship between tribal, federal, and state law.

In clear and straightforward language, Justin B. Richland and Sarah Deer discuss the history and structure of tribal justice systems; the scope of criminal and civil jurisdictions; and the various means by which the integrity of tribal courts is maintained. This book is an indispensable resource for students, tribal leaders, and tribal communities interested in the complicated relationship between tribal, federal, and state law.

Arguing with Tradition is the first book to explore language and interaction within a contemporary Native American legal system. Grounded in Justin Richland's extensive field research on the Hopi Indian Nation of northeastern Arizona--on whose appellate court he now serves as Justice Pro Tempore--this innovative work explains how Hopi notions of tradition and culture shape and are shaped by the processes of Hopi jurisprudence.
Like many indigenous legal institutions across North America, the Hopi Tribal Court was created in the image of Anglo-American-style law. But Richland shows that in recent years, Hopi jurists and litigants have called for their courts to develop a jurisprudence that better reflects Hopi culture and traditions. Providing unprecedented insights into the Hopi and English courtroom interactions through which this conflict plays out, Richland argues that tensions between the language of Anglo-style law and Hopi tradition both drive Hopi jurisprudence and make it unique. Ultimately, Richland's analyses of the language of Hopi law offer a fresh approach to the cultural politics that influence indigenous legal and governmental practices worldwide.

It is well-known that there is a complicated relationship between Native American tribes and the US government. Relations between tribes and the government are dominated by the principle known as the "Federal-Indian Trust Relationship." The key aspect of this principle is that the government is supposed to engage in meaningful consultations with the tribes about issues that affect them. In Cooperation without Submission, Justin B. Richland, an associate justice of the Hopi Appellate Court and ethnographer, closely examines the language employed by both tribes and government agencies in over eighty hours of meetings between the two. Richland shows how tribes conduct these meetings using language that demonstrates their commitment to nation-to-nation interdependency, while federal agents appear to approach these consultations with the assumption that federal law is supreme and ultimately authoritative. Meaning, Native American tribes see themselves as nations with some degree of independence, entitled to recognition of their sovereignty over tribal lands, while the federal government acts to limit that authority. In this vital book, Richland sheds light on the ways the tribes use their language to engage in "cooperation without submission."

It is well-known that there is a complicated relationship between Native American tribes and the US government. Relations between tribes and the government are dominated by the principle known as the "Federal-Indian Trust Relationship." The key aspect of this principle is that the government is supposed to engage in meaningful consultations with the tribes about issues that affect them. In Cooperation without Submission, Justin B. Richland, an associate justice of the Hopi Appellate Court and ethnographer, closely examines the language employed by both tribes and government agencies in over eighty hours of meetings between the two. Richland shows how tribes conduct these meetings using language that demonstrates their commitment to nation-to-nation interdependency, while federal agents appear to approach these consultations with the assumption that federal law is supreme and ultimately authoritative. Meaning, Native American tribes see themselves as nations with some degree of independence, entitled to recognition of their sovereignty over tribal lands, while the federal government acts to limit that authority. In this vital book, Richland sheds light on the ways the tribes use their language to engage in "cooperation without submission."

Arguing with Tradition is the first book to explore language and interaction within a contemporary Native American legal system. Grounded in Justin Richland's extensive field research on the Hopi Indian Nation of northeastern Arizona--on whose appellate court he now serves as Justice Pro Tempore--this innovative work explains how Hopi notions of tradition and culture shape and are shaped by the processes of Hopi jurisprudence.
Like many indigenous legal institutions across North America, the Hopi Tribal Court was created in the image of Anglo-American-style law. But Richland shows that in recent years, Hopi jurists and litigants have called for their courts to develop a jurisprudence that better reflects Hopi culture and traditions. Providing unprecedented insights into the Hopi and English courtroom interactions through which this conflict plays out, Richland argues that tensions between the language of Anglo-style law and Hopi tradition both drive Hopi jurisprudence and make it unique. Ultimately, Richland's analyses of the language of Hopi law offer a fresh approach to the cultural politics that influence indigenous legal and governmental practices worldwide.