| |
| | Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) |
 | | In his view, ANCSA was intended to be a departure from traditional Indian policy: It attempted to preserve Indian tribes, but simultaneously attempted to sever them from the land; it attempted to leave them as sovereign entities for some purposes, but as sovereigns without territorial reach. Id., at 1303. |
 | | Because ANCSA revoked the Venetie Reservation, and because no Indian allotments are at issue, whether the Tribes land is Indian country depends on whether it falls within the dependent Indian communities prong of the statute, §1151(b). |
 | | After ANCSA, federal protection of the Tribes land is essentially limited to a statutory declaration that the land is exempt from adverse possession claims, real property taxes, and certain judgments as long as it has not been sold, leased, or developed. |
| supct.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/96-1577.ZO.html (3090 words) |
|