Last weeks decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in McGirt v. Oklahoma was not the biggest news item out of the highest court in the land either today or this session. But conservatives should pay attention because it shows a schism between legal thinking and policy attitudes on the part of liberals that is highly relevant to todays debates over race, American history, and minority rights.

The Supreme Court just recognized, in clear and uncertain terms, the principle of Native American tribal sovereignty, and it was the liberal justices, plus Justice Neil Gorsuch, who did so. This is interesting because, in a number of policy battles in recent years, liberals have proved eager to trample on that principle to bank left-of-center policy wins.

This is true all over the policy spectrum but especially in the realm of energy development. A June 2015 Government Accountability Office study determined that under President Barack Obama, shortcomings on the part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs hindered Indian energy development. In one case, the bureau was alleged to have taken 18 months to review a wind lease, a delay that resulted in the project proving unable to move forward, resulting in a loss of revenue for the tribe.

Another case involved a delay in permitting that arose under Obama (although documents had been originally submitted to the bureau under President George W. Bush), causing a tribe to lose an estimated $95 million in revenue.

In another case, the bureau took more than three years to review and approve a utility-scale wind project. In that dynamic, fast-growing, and fast-changing sector, it should be little surprise that the delay hindered the tribes ability to turn wind into energy and profit, as liberals routinely champion the public doing.

The Obama administration, of course, also blocked tribes from mining coal on their own land. So did Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who tried to put a hold on coal exports, which negatively affected the Crow Nation, the land of which holds up to 9 billion tons of coal. Without being able to tap that resource, the Crow Nation's unemployment has made COVID-19 jobless rates look like a walk in the park.

Liberals have also sought to negate or weaken tribal sovereignty in instances in which financial services are concerned because tribes cleverly figured out that by moving into areas such as short-term, online lending, they could fill a gap in the financial services marketplace and bring more money into tribal coffers.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created under Obama and vigorously defended by most Democrats and especially the most liberal ones, has pursued cases against tribal lenders based on what they claim are high rates of interest attached to such loans. Tribal lenders certainly felt targeted by the Obama Justice Departments Operation Choke Point, which appeared to be engaging in very heavy-handed tactics to shut down lending operations of the type in which tribes have become involved.

Obama also designated Bears Ears as a national monument. This has been depicted by many liberals as a decision in line with Native American wishes, but that is not a universally held view among tribes in the relevant area.

Under Obama, the Bureau of Indian Affairs also blocked Washington states Chehalis tribe from distilling alcohol on their land. That ban on alcohol distilleries on tribal lands, including those belonging to the Chehalis, which emanated from an 1834 law, was only reversed through passage and signing into law of HR 5317 in 2018, when Republicans had full control of Congress and the White House.

None of this is to argue that Republicans or conservatives are better than liberals or Democrats on perhaps the most important issue to Native Americans, although Native Americans, I know, were gratified by President Trumps 2018 indication to tribal leaders that they should go ahead with energy exploration on their lands, which evidenced a recognition of tribal sovereignty at the highest level if not a deep understanding of the current federal government administrative decision-making process.

But there is great friction on this important issue, which in turn affects economic activity on tribal lands, within the Democratic Party.

Liberals are going to need to determine which takes priority: the self-determination rights of Americas first inhabitants, who virtually everyone can agree were not well-treated by our ancestors or banking policy wins in areas such as energy or financial services by wielding an anti-sovereignty federal bureaucracy and federal regulations that many Native Americans see as having effectively become tools of racist oppression.

Liz Mair is a consultant in Washington, D.C.

See the original post:

Friction between liberal ideology and tribal sovereignty comes to the fore - Washington Examiner