The Baldy Center Blog Post 52 
Blog Author: Claudia B. Villegas Ramos, LLM candidate
Blog Title: Sovereignty and Indigenous Law through the lens of Social Dominance Theory

What if federal Indian law is not failing, but operating precisely as intended? That was the central argument of Michalyn Steele’s recent talk, “Social Dominance Theory and the Supreme Court’s Federal Indian Law Jurisprudence,” presented on September 19, 2025, as part of The Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy’s Distinguished Speaker Series.

Steele, a citizen of the Seneca Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and a leading scholar in Federal Indian Law, studies jurisprudence through the lens of Social Dominance Theory, a framework that proposes that institutions do not merely reflect social hierarchies but actively create and maintain them. Applied to federal Indian case law, Steele argued, this theory reveals a consistent pattern: rather than protecting tribal sovereignty, U.S. law often reinforces white dominance, all under the appearance of constitutional neutrality.

In this view, Indigenous nations have survived not because of federal law, but in resistance to it. Even in Supreme Court decisions that are overall detrimental to tribal interests, Native advocates have had to search for small, strategic victories. This dynamic reflects a larger theme in Indigenous survival, one that relies on adaptation, and on strategic legal reinterpretation. But it also raises a deeper question: can justice for Indigenous peoples truly be built with tools designed for their domination?

Steele emphasized that tribal sovereignty is a political, not racial, construct and must be recognized as such to safeguard tribal authority. She criticized the continued reliance on blood quantum requirements and Certificates of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB), which she argued reduce Indigenous identity to racial categories while undermining their sovereignty. While the federal government may rely on such criteria, Steele noted that tribal membership is fundamentally a matter of political status determined by the tribe itself. She warned that framing Indigenous identity in racial terms opens the door to legal challenges that could erode tribal sovereignty.

She also offered a broader Indigenous perspective on sovereignty, one rooted in responsibility rather than domination. In many Native languages, the closest term to "sovereignty" suggests accountability to the community and to future generations. Tribal leaders often invoke sovereignty as a right to self-governance, not as an absolutist power, she explained. Still, the term bears the weight of colonial legacy in U.S. law. Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, consistently argues that tribes are not sovereign in any meaningful constitutional sense, asserting that any such status was extinguished through conquest. In this view, sovereignty is binary. Tribes either have it, or they do not.

Indigenous legal advocates, however, often take a more nuanced position. Tribes may not have full sovereignty as recognized under international law; they may exercise internal jurisdiction but lack external recognition. Thus, this model still operates within a legal system fundamentally structured to limit Indigenous autonomy.

The more fundamental critique, which Steele alluded to, is whether the legal concept of sovereignty, imposed and inherited by U.S. law, can truly serve Indigenous autonomy ends. Is it possible to use a system built on colonial dominance to achieve justice for Indigenous nations?

She pointed to McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894 (2020) as a case that illustrates the complexity of this dynamic. In McGirt, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s reservation still legally exists, rejecting a century of state and federal assumptions that it had been disestablished. Justice Gorsuch’s opinion focused strictly on statutory language, rejecting arguments based on the racial or demographic composition of the region. While the decision was a legal win for tribes, Steele cautioned that it remains fragile and subject to changes in judicial philosophy and political climate.

Reflecting on older precedents such as Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823), Steele offered a nuanced view. While Johnson denied tribes full ownership of their lands, it may have unintentionally helped some tribes retain territory. Wherever Native land became fully alienable, especially during the allotment era, it was often lost entirely. In contrast, tribes that were restrained from selling their land, due to restrictive ownership rulings, have more often maintained cultural and political continuity.

Steele uses this paradox to make a larger point: survival alone is not justice. The fact that some tribes endured through these contradictions should not be seen as a success of the system but as a testament to Indigenous resilience in spite of it. While some oppressive rulings have accidentally helped tribes survive, the system itself was never intended to protect or support true Indigenous sovereignty.

Ultimately, Steele’s presentation revealed the limitations of working within a legal system built to contain, rather than empower, Indigenous nations. Survival has been achieved, but at great cost. The challenge now is not merely to survive, but to envision forms of governance, justice, and community that transcend colonial legal logic. As Steele reminded the audience, the embers of sovereignty still burn, but to ignite a lasting change, they need to be fueled by Indigenous traditions, values, and self-determined visions for the future.