69 F. Supp. 2d 141 - Ransom v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 450 (§ 2 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Allied Chemical Corporation v. Daiflon Inc · Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · Perrin v. United States · White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendants’ rhetoric endorsing the principles of self government and tribal sovereignty ultimately rings hollow here. The essence of tribal self-determination is the Tribe’s ability to choose for itself how its government will operate. For Defendants to refuse to acknowledge that choice because they disagree with it, or to actively seek to institute the form of government that they prefer, turns that notion on its head. Defendants’ repeated refusal to recognize the Tribe’s earnest efforts to undo its contentious certification of the Constitution, couched in the language of respect for tribal sovereignty, is disingenuous at best.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In situations of federal-tribal government interaction where the federal government must decide what tribal entity to recognize as the government, it must do so in harmony with the principles of tribal self-determination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[b]oth the record before the IBIA and its legal obligation to respect tribal sovereignty and self-determination should have led it to reject the BIA’s determination that the Tribe’s Constitution was valid. Aside from the simple fact that 51% of the voters in the Tribal referendum did not choose to adopt the Constitution, the very language of the Tribal Court decisions should have given Defendants pause before they adopted that Court’s findings as federal policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.