S. James Anaya


Although the Court has in many instances ruled in favor of Native Americans, its approach in the multiple cases it has decided involving them could rarely be called therapeutic in the sense that term is used in the Introduction to this issue. The Court's jurisprudence in this area provides perhaps the starkest American example of the appellate judiciary functioning in an antitherapeutic role in the context of majority-minority conflicts. In this brief Article, I will identify particular aspects of the Court's jurisprudence to make this point. Further, I will suggest what is needed in order for the Court to function in a more conciliatory role.