Landback as Federal Policy

Abstract

Demands for the return of land to tribal nations have become much louder and more compelling in recent years. While “landback” has been part of federal policy for nearly a century, lawmakers and presidents from both parties have embraced landback initiatives more firmly in the last half century. But the quantity of lands returned is almost insignificant in comparison to the vast lands taken. Landback efforts are based in compelling moral claims. This Article summarizes the moral claims for landback by briefly recounting the widespread loss of land by Indian tribes through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and highlighting the unique role of the federal government
in this tragedy. It also showcases some of the tribal and federal counterefforts to the loss of land, including existing federal landback efforts that have returned millions of acres to tribes. The federal government has many tools available, and it should deploy them more effectively. Advocates must
also be more strategic. Landback can be viewed in context with related federal initiatives, including renaming, comanagement, and costewardship, as well reservation expansion, retrocession, and other federal efforts to restore and expand tribal selfgovernance. These numerous related federal

and tribal initiatives can support tribal landback and restorative justice efforts.

About the Author

The Author is the former Dean of the University of Iowa College of Law and will join the law faculty at the University of California-Berkeley in the fall of 2025. Research assistants Dane Beaulieu and Tristan Verghese at Iowa Law provided valuable assistance in completing this Article. Throughout the text, the Author, a member of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, occasionally uses the word “Indian.” The term is undoubtedly incorrect. It reflects an unfortunate mistake made in the fifteenth century that nevertheless somehow has continued. Today, the term is featured in hundreds of federal statutes and appears on the spine of five volumes of Title 25 of the United States Code. It thus necessarily remains in common usage by lawyers and judges and is used occasionally, though sparingly, in this Article, for which the Author requests forgiveness.

By LRIRE