Tribal Energy

So What Is a "Permanent Improvement" to Indian Land?

Much is being made of the new U.S. Department of the Interior leasing regulation, 25 C.F.R. § 162.017, which makes clear that "permanent improvements" to leased Indian land are “not subject to any fee, tax, assessment, levy, or other charge imposed by any State or political subdivision of a State." Related FAQs from those in tribal economic development, include: What is a permanent improvement? What makes an improvement permanent? And most commonly, does [insert type of real or personal property] constitute a tax-exempt permanent improvement? This blog attempts to help folks answer such pivotal questions from a legal point of view.

25 U.S.C. § 465 of course explicitly exempts Indian trust land from state and local taxation. In Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, it was held that Section 465 exempts not only tribal land from state and local taxation, but any tax that the Court deems to be an equivalent to a tax on land, including any “permanent improvements” thereon. 411 U.S. 145, 158 (1973).


Such is true regardless of how the state characterizes those improvements. See Drye v. United States, 528 U.S. 49, 52-53 (1999) (federal law, not state law, defines “property and rights to property” for purposes of a federal tax statute); Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation v. Thurston County Bd. of Equalization, 724 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[I]t is irrelevant whether permanent improvements constitute personal property under [state] law.”).

Under federal law, there is no one definition of a “permanent improvement” for taxation purposes. PPL Corp. v. C.I.R., 135 T.C. 176, 193 (U.S. Tax Ct. 2010).

Instead, courts look to six factors, the “primary focus” of which “is the question of the permanence of depreciable property and the damage caused to it or to realty upon removal of the depreciable property.” Id. (quoting Trentadue v. C.I.R., 128 T.C. 91, 99 (U.S. Tax Ct. 2007)). These factors are as follows:

(1) “Is the property capable of being moved, and has it in fact been moved?” Whiteco Industries Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 65 T.C. 664, 672 (U.S. Tax Ct. 1975).

(2) “Is the property designed or constructed to remain permanently in place?” Id.

(3) “Are there circumstances which tend to show the expected or intended length of affixation, i.e., are there circumstances which show that the property may or will have to be moved?” Id.

(4) “How substantial a job is removal of the property and how time-consuming is it? Is it ‘readily removable’?” Id. at 673.

(5) “How much damage will the property sustain upon its removal?” Id.

(6) “What is the manner of affixation of the property to the land?” Id.

There you have it. So is your improvement permanent?

Gabriel “Gabe” Galanda is the Managing Partner at Galanda Broadman. He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California. Gabe can be reached at 206.300.7801 or

Galanda, Broadman and Dreveskracht's Law Review Articles Named to Prof. Matthew Fletcher's Must-Read List

Leading American indigenous rights scholar Professor Matthew Fletcher has published, "American Indian Legal Scholarship and the Courts: Heeding Frickey’s Call," in the March 2013 volume of California Law Review.

In the article, he cites law review articles by Gabe Galanda, Anthony Broadman and Ryan Dreveskracht, respectively, in "a list of articles produced in the five years or so since Frickey’s call that...have overcome the law review market’s hurdles to meet Frickey’s criteria."

In harkening the late Prof. Philip P. Frickey's call "for dramatic changes to the goals and methodologies of American Indian legal favor of more grounded and empirical scholarship, work that could inform the Court about the realities on the ground in Indian country," Prof. Fletcher concludes his paper with "a celebration of the impact Frickey’s call already has had on the academy":

[S]everal American Indian legal scholars are doing their damnedest to meet Frickey’s call. Federal and state judges are not the only audience. Legal scholarship is for practicing attorneys; tribal, state, and federal leaders; and many others, too. And so I conclude this short paper with my own reading list of recent work that unquestionably fulfills the call for new realism in American Indian legal scholarship. I include articles dating back five years or so that meet one or more of the criteria articulated by Frickey. I also add a list of excellent “nuts and bolts” articles.

Prof. Fletcher's "must-read" list includes:

Gabriel S. Galanda, Arbitration in Indian Country: Taking the Long View, 65 DISP.RESOL.J., Nov. 2010-Jan. 2011, at 30.

Anthony Broadman, Know Your Enemy: Local Taxation and Tax Agreements in Indian Country, AM. INDIAN L.J., Trial Issue 2012, at 1.

Ryan David Dreveskracht, Native Nation Economic Development Via the Implementation of Solar Projects: How to Make It Work, 68 WASH.&LEE L.REV. 27 (2011).

Gabe, Anthony and Ryan are truly honored by Prof. Fletcher's citation to and inclusion of their law review scholarship in his most important paper regarding the state and future of American Indian legal scholarship.

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian owned law firm.  Trained by the American Arbitration Association, Gabe arbitrates disputes between tribal and non-tribal governments and other parties, as well as mediates such disputes.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  Anthony Broadman is also a partner at the firm, practicing in Bend, Oregon. His practice focuses on company-critical business litigation and representing tribal governments, especially in federal, state and local tax controversy. Ryan Dreveskracht is an associate at the firm. His practice focuses on representing businesses and tribal governments in public affairs, energy, gaming, taxation, and general economic development.

Brighter Days for Tribal Green Energy

Despite dark and dreary partisan gridlock in Washington, DC, rays of light are emanating from within the Beltway and upon renewable energy projects in Indian Country.

First, the Fiscal Cliff bill extended both the production and investment tax credits for renewable energy projects.  Previously, these tax credits were only available for wind projects that were completed by 2012 and biomass, landfill gas, and waste-to-energy projects completed by the end of 2013.

Thanks to the Fiscal Cliff bill, these credits have both been extended until the end of 2014.  These incentives provide a credit against federal income tax liability for electricity produced by renewable energy projects.  The amount of the credit is based on either (1) the number of kilowatt hours of electricity produced by the taxpayer and sold to an unrelated party in a given year (production tax credits) or (2) the expenditures made before the project is placed in service and for which the taxpayer has made an election to treat the expenditures as progress expenditures (investment tax credits).  Together, these incentives can be leveraged to fund around 30% of a project's costs.

The bill also extends both the Indian employment tax credit and the accelerated depreciation incentive.  Both of these incentives help encourage renewable energy development and energy independence in Indian country by lowering the operating and development costs of these projects.

The accelerated depreciation incentive allows Indian Country energy investors to use shorter recovery periods when calculating depreciation deductions for its production equipment.   “Qualified Indian reservation property” must be used predominately in the active conduct of a trade or business on the Reservation and must be 3-, 5-, 7-, 10-, 15-, or 20-year property or non-residential real property.  “Qualified infrastructure property” that is located off-reservation, but connected to qualified infrastructure within the reservation, is also eligible for shorter recovery periods.

Power lines, water systems and telecommunication facilities are examples of qualified infrastructure property.  Real property rented to others on an Indian reservation is also eligible for an accelerated depreciation schedule.  Because the shorter recovery periods for qualified Indian and infrastructure property are in addition to the normal expense deduction of up to $100,000 for such assets, the depreciation tax savings to non-Indian manufacturers could also be significant.  The bill reauthorizes the provision until 2014.

The Indian Employment Tax Credit provides businesses with an incentive to hire individuals who are enrolled members of an Indian tribe (or the spouse of an enrolled member) and who live on or near an Indian reservation.  A $4,000 tax credit is available to such businesses each tax year, for each “qualified employee” that is paid “qualified wages.”

A qualified employee must: (1) be an enrolled member of an Indian tribe or the spouse of a tribal member; (2) perform substantially all of his or her services for the business on the reservation; and, (3) reside on or near the reservation.  Qualified wages are any wages the business pays or incurs for services performed by a qualified employee, including health insurance costs.  The bill retroactively extended the program to December 31, 2013.

In addition to the Fiscal Cliff bill, the IRS has recently issued a ruling that is highly favorable to Indian energy development partners looking to take advantage of tax credits.  In IRS Ruling No. 201310001 the IRS determined that  “an Indian tribal government is  neither a governmental unit described in § 50(b)(4) nor an organization exempt from tax imposed by Chapter 1 for purposes of § 50” of the Internal Revenue Code.

Although counterintuitive, this is a good thing.  Because IRC § 50(b)(3) provides that no investment credit “shall be determined . . . with respect to any property used by an organization . . . which is exempt from the tax imposed,” entities wishing to invest in tribal energy projects were potentially ineligible for pass-through investment credits.  This ruling, however, means that tribes may now “elect to pass investment credits associated with the Renewable Energy Assets” to non-Indian lessees.  As discussed above, the ability to pass these investment credits onto non-Indian partners can be leveraged to fund a large piece of a project’s startup costs.

In all, the days ahead for tribal green energy development projects just got a bit brighter.

Ryan Dreveskracht is an Associate at Galanda Broadman, PLLC.  His practice focuses on representing businesses and tribal governments in public affairs, energy, gaming, taxation, and general economic development.  His recent publication in the Energy Law Journal, "Alternative Energy in American Indian Country: Catering to Both Sides of the Coin," is available here.   He can be reached at 206.909.3842 or ryan

Tribal Energy Lawyer-Scholar Ryan Dreveskracht Publishes Tribal Solar Power Article

Ryan Dreveskracht has published his latest law review article on the topic of tribal renewable energy "Economic Development, Native Nations, and Solar Projects," in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. It is available for free download here.

This article examines the issues surrounding sustainable eco- nomic development in American Indian country via the implementation of solar energy projects. The second section addresses Native American economic development, generally, focusing on practical sovereignty, capable institutions, and cultural match. The third section discusses solar energy projects: the benefits of solar energy when compared to other types of energy production; the ways that these projects will benefit Indian country specifically; and the rationale behind implementing solar energy projects as a means to sustainable economic development in Indian country. The fourth section will briefly discuss the question: Given the advantages of solar energy that the article advocates, why is the uptake in Indian country not already prolific?

In November 2012, he published "Alternative Energy in American Indian Country: Catering to Both Sides of the Coin," in the latest edition of Energy Law Journal.

Ryan Dreveskracht is an Associate at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm. His practice focuses on representing businesses and tribal governments in public affairs, energy, gaming, taxation, and general economic development. He can be reached at 206.909.3842 or

Fiscal Cliff Bill Affords Indian Country Tax Relief, Suprisingly

As reports, the "fiscal cliff" bill includes several provisions that are designed to stimulate employment and economic opportunities in Indian Country. The Indian Employment Tax Credit, which encourages businesses to hire tribal members and their spouses, expired in December 2011 but is now retroactivated to 2012 and extended until the end of 2013.

The Accelerated Depreciation Incentive, which helps businesses locate on Indian lands, also expired in December 2011 but also received a two-year extension, until the end of 2013.

A production credit for coal facilities that were placed in service in Indian Country before 2009 was also extended until January 2014.

The New Market Tax Credit Program was extended through the end of 2013, with $3.5 billion in tax credits allocated for each year.

At the original request of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, Gabe Galanda has written a paper that explains the interplay of all of these and other tax advantages in Indian Country, titled, "The Business Case for Private Investment and Development in Indian Country." It is available here.

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  Gabe assists tribal governments and businesses in all matters of tribal economic development and diversification, including entity formation and related tax strategy. He also helps tribes and tribal businesses and joint ventures withstand attack from federal, state and local government. Gabe can be reached at 206.691.3631 or

Seattle Tribal Lawyer Ryan Dreveskracht Publishes Indian Alternative Energy Article

Ryan Dreveskracht has published "Alternative Energy in American Indian Country: Catering to Both Sides of the Coin," in the latest edition of Energy Law Journal.

Given the bipartisan Congressional support for tribal energy development in Indian country, one would assume that tribal governments and their citizens would be playing a large role in making this come to fruition. But, as noted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), “[o]ur existing laws are falling short of fully enabling tribes to develop their natural resources.”

Has anyone stopped to ask, though, whether tribal governments and their citizens even want to develop alternative energies on their lands? A peripheral reading of recent media accounts would suggest that tribes throughout the Nation are voicing active opposition to alternative energy projects.

This article looks at both sides of the renewable energy “coin” in relation to American Indian country. On the one side, at least according to some recent media depictions, it appears that tribal governments and their citizens are adamantly opposed to any energy development on their lands. All told, however, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Section A of this article will explain that tribes merely seek a seat at the table when decisions are made regarding developments that will adversely affect their lands or areas of cultural significance, and why this is important. Indeed, contrary to being opposed to alternative energy development, Tribes are very actively seeking to develop their lands, and to do so in a manner that is consistent with their cultures and traditions. But, large-scale alternative energy projects are virtually absent from Indian country. Thus, Section B of this article will discuss what is hindering these projects from coming to fruition. Finally, Section C of the article will discuss what Congress is – and is not – doing regarding the two sides of the coin.

Ryan Dreveskracht is an Associate at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm. His practice focuses on representing businesses and tribal governments in public affairs, energy, gaming, taxation, and general economic development. He can be reached at 206.909.3842 or

Gabe Galanda Republishes Tribal Economic Diversification Paper

Gabe Galanda published an updated version of his paper, "The Business Case for Private Investmentand Development in Indian Country," at the 12th Annual Native Nations Law Symposium that was held on the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas on September 14th. He added new topics such as several federal Indian Country tax incentives that Congress has allowed to expire, as well as the HEARTH Act. He originally published the paper at RES 2011, at the request of the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development.

[W]hile state and local governments struggle to make ends meet [amidst the Great Recession], tribal governments have largely avoided economic catastrophe. Fueled by the $26 billion Indian gaming industry, Indian Country is generally faring much better than neighboring local economies since the recession took hold in 2008. Ironically, not having property tax bases to begin with, most tribal governmental revenues have remained stable. Many tribes are avoiding complacency; they recognize that the Indian gaming industry will not sustain its exponential growth over the last decade. The inevitable legalization of Internet gaming and, in some jurisdictions, commercial land-based gaming, will eventually put a major dent in Indian Country’s bottom line. As such, tribal governments are more than ever looking to diversify their economies.

Where tribes bring a staggering array tangibles like land and location, and intangibles like sovereignty, relaxed red tape and tax exemption, their corporate business partners bring proven industry expertise and new capital to the reservation. Whether through a joint venture between a tribe and a non-Indian business, a tribal land lease to a non-tribal company, or a tax credit investment – all of which are contemplated below – there are an abundance of very advantageous reservation development deals for Corporate America to symbiotically explore with tribes at this time in our nation’s history. The time is now for tribes to leverage these advantages to create new economic and job opportunities on their reservations.

Gabriel "Gabe" Galanda is a partner at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian owned law firm.  He is an enrolled member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo, California.  Gabe assists tribal governments and businesses in all matters of tribal economic development and diversification, including entity formation and related tax strategy. Gabe can be reached at 206.691.3631 or

Getting Green in Indian Country: Two Sides of the Buffalo Nickel

A recent study conducted by Small Business America, reveals that  “[a]cross all industries and at both ends of the political spectrum, entrepreneurs overwhelmingly support government investing in renewable energy and creating clean energy policies that will help guide them into a new economic sector where they can do business.”   The study found that “71 percent believe government investments in clean energy play an important role in creating jobs now.”

The federal government is trying its best to make this happen.  President Obama’s goal of generating 80 percent of the nation’s electricity from clean energy sources by 2035 has led to numerous projects on millions of acres of public lands, most in Western states.  The administration has put some of the most promising, shovel-ready projects on a “fast track” for Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) permitting.  In issuing these permits, federal officials say “they have consulted with multiple tribes and have either made sure the massive solar projects will not harm any historic works or have determined that certain sites are not worthy of protecting.”

But, apparently, the Fed’s idea of what it means to “consult” in making this determination is something other than required by its own clearly defined laws and regulations.  In 2010, for instance, the BLM allowed a solar project to move forward without adequately consulting the tribe whose areas of cultural significance would be directly affected by the project.   Luckily, the tribe was able to obtain an injunction in federal court that put an end to the project before those areas could be harmed.   See Quechan Tribe v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 755 F.Supp.2d 1104 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (“[I]f the tribe hasn't been adequately consulted and the project goes ahead anyway, this legally-protected procedural interest would effectively be lost.”).

The Colorado River Indian Tribes were not as fortunate.   Late last month, a solar project named “Genesis” uncovered a human tooth and a handful of burned bone fragments the size of quarters on a sand dune in the shadow of new solar power transmission towers.  As reported by the LA Times:

 To be clear (federal agencies take note): “Meaningful consultation means tribal consultation in advance with the decision maker or with intermediaries with clear authority to present tribal views” to the agency decision maker.  This usually comprises of a meeting, during which the federal agency notifies the tribe of the proposed action and justifies its reasoning.  The tribe may then issue a motion of support for the decision, or reject the decision, pursuant to tribal law or procedure.  Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Deer, 911 F. Supp. 395, 401 (D.S.D. 1995).

The other side of the coin is that, contrary to being “against renewable energy,” tribal governments are in the best position to utilize their land to develop these projects in a manner that is consistent with their culture and tradition, and are actively seeking to do so.  By the numbers, these developments should be paying off: An estimated $1 trillion in revenue is possible were Indian country to fully develop its energy resources.  With tribes already feeling the brunt of global warming, the environmental benefits of using alternative energies to support the next generation are increasingly being explored. Where unemployment levels are disproportionately high in Indian country, perhaps equally important is that alternative energies are job-creating hothouses.

But as I noted last summer, the federal government has failed to allow tribes to enter the alternative energy market at all.  In short, were a Tribe to chose to develop its own lands in a similar manner – save for the disturbance of its areas of cultural and spiritual significance – the project would have been a dead end.  Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 415, transactions involving the transfer of an interest in Indian trust land must be approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”).  And even where the tribe structures the project without leasing its land, 25 U.S.C. § requires that the BIA approve contracts that could “encumber” Indian lands for a period of seven or more years.  In these instances the BIA approval process constitutes a “federal action,” which triggers a slew of federal laws that the BIA must comply with – laws that can take over 12 years to comply with and can generate millions of dollars in additional cost.

In August of 2010, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) introduced S. 3752, “[a] bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to streamline Indian energy development, to enhance programs to support Indian energy development and efficiency, to make technical corrections.”  In short, the bill attempted to reduce the Federal burdens through mandated interagency coordination of planning and decision-making; regulatory waiver provisions; relief from land transaction appraisal requirements; and the elimination of fees assessed by Bureau of Land Management for applications for permits to develop Indian lands.  But the bill died before it was introduced to the full Senate.

More recently, in October of last year, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced S. 1684, “[a] bill to amend the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2005.”  Although not as robust as S. 3752, S. 1684 is significant in that it makes the Tribal Energy Resource Agreement (“TERA”) provision of the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2005 somewhat workable.  Section 103 of the bill extends an approval exemption to leases, business agreements, and rights-of-way granted by a tribe to a tribal energy development organization in which the tribe maintains a controlling interest, thereby expanding the opportunity for access to capital for direct tribal development without federal approval where the tribe continues to control the activity.  This Section also provides for a favorable tribal capacity determination based on a tribe’s performance of 93-638 contracts or self-governance compacts over a three year period without material audit exceptions; allows for TERA funding transfers to be negotiated between the BIA and the tribe based on cost savings occasioned by the Interior Department as a result of a TERA; and confirms that TERA provisions do not waive tribal sovereign immunity.

Last week, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on S. 1684, where numerous tribal officials indicated their support for the bill.  Although many officials submitted that “biggest problem is what is not in the bill” – as “S. 1684 barely scratches the surface of outdated laws and regulations, bureaucratic regulatory and permitting processes, and insufficient federal staffing or expertise to implement those processes” – the overall sentiment was that S. 1684 is a much needed step in the right direction.  As noted by Tex G. Hall, Chairman of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation of the Fort Berthold Reservation: “If Indian tribes are going to unlock the potential of their energy resources and provided needed domestic energy supplies, we need real changes in the law.  Changes that affirm tribal authority, provide tribes access to funding and financing opportunities, and allow tribes to participate in federal energy programs that have over looked tribes for decades.”

The next step will be for the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to consider mark-ups to the bill.  A fine line will need to be towed.  Hopefully, considering the testimony of tribal leaders submitted last week, mark-ups can make the bill as hearty as the previously introduced S. 3752.  However, a step in the right direction is better than no steps at all, and any changes that will furnish the bill a similar fate should be avoided.

Hopefully both sides of the coin – cultural property protection in the face of any callous non-Indian energy development, and streamlined tribal energy development for sake of tribal self-determination – can be realized by the revised S. 1684.  The protection of Indian Country, both in the long and short term, quite literally depends on it.

Ryan Dreveskracht is an Associate at Galanda Broadman PLLC, of Seattle, an American Indian majority-owned law firm. His practice focuses on representing businesses and tribal governments in public affairs, energy, gaming, taxation, and general economic development. He can be reached at 206.909.3842 or

Proposed Federal Leasing Rule Could Spur Tribal Renewable Energy Development, Finally

On November 28, the Department of the Interior issued a proposed leasing rule, 25 C.F.R. § 162. According to the DOI, the rule will “remove referral roadblocks to economic development[,] restore greater control to tribal governments[,]streamline the approval process for home ownership, expedite economic development[,] and spur renewable energy development in Indian Country.” Although not as comprehensive as it could be, the proposed regulation change is a significant step in the right direction.

The proposed regulations will streamline the leasing process by imposing timelines on the Department for reviewing leases: up to 30 days for residential leases, and up to 60 days for business leases and wind and solar energy leases.

The proposed regulations will also distinguish between residential, business, and wind and solar energy leases, and establish separate processes for review, as well as permitting the automatic approval of subleases and amendments to existing leases.

Further, the proposed regulations eliminate the requirement for Department approval of “permits” for activities on Indian lands, and defer to the judgment of tribes and individual Indians on land use and rental rates.

The proposed regulations will also establish a new, streamlined process for the development of wind and solar energy projects on Indian lands, by distinguishing between leases based on whether they are for residential, business, or wind and solar energy development.

The proposed rule will not apply to subsurface lands or agricultural leases, nor will it modify the agency’s obligation to comply with federal environmental laws and policies. However, because the proposed regulations require federal approval in fewer instances – the “federal action” triggering the application of federal environmental laws – it is likely that a significant environmental-regulatory burden will be lifted.

The Department of the Interior has drafted a comparison chart of existing and proposed regulations, available here.

Ryan Dreveskracht is an Associate at Galanda Broadman PLLC. His practice focuses on representing businesses and tribal governments in public affairs, energy, gaming, taxation, and general economic development. He can be reached at 206.909.3842 or

Ryan Dreveskracht Joins Galanda Broadman

Ryan Dreveskracht has been hired as an Associate by Galanda Broadman, PLLC, a Seattle-based law firm dedicated to representing American Indian interests. In August, Ryan completed a clerkship with Judge Kathleen Kay of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Ryan received his L.L.M. in Sustainable International Development from the University of Washington School of Law, and his J.D. from the University of Arizona College of Law, where he also obtained a certificate in Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy. He holds a B.A. in Philosophy and Law, Society, and Justice from the University of Washington, and an A.A. from Lower Columbia College.

Ryan is a prolific legal scholar, having published several works regarding energy development, taxation, jurisdiction, and tribal-federal relations. He is the Managing Editor of the National Lawyer’s Guild Review. Ryan’s recent cutting-edge legal and economic scholarship includes:

• Washington State: Collect Your Own Taxes – That’s Where the Money’s At, The Circle: News From a Native American Perspective, August 15, 2011 • The Shifting Tide of Economic Policy: Will Indian Country Be Left to Drown?, Indian Country Today, April 7, 2011 • Native Nation Economic Development via the Implementation of Solar Projects: How to Make it Work, 68 Washington & Lee Law Review 27 (2011) • Tribal Court Jurisdiction Stripping and Native Nation Economies: A Trip Down the Rabbit Hole, 68 National Lawyers Guild Review 65 (2011) • The Impact of Digital Technology on Indigenous Peoples, in Robert A. Hershey, EcoLiterateLaw: Globalization and the Transformation of Cultures and Humanity 114 (2010)

Galanda Broadman is a majority Indian-owned law firm that represents tribal governments, businesses and members in critical litigation, business and regulatory matters.