Federal Indian Law in General Law Reviews

What are the chances, statistically, of an article focusing on Federal Indian Law being accepted and published by a general law review? Which law reviews published the most articles about Federal Indian Law in the last 30 years (at least according to WESTLAW, which goes back further for some journals than others)?

Here are the results of this not-so-scientific survey. The first list is of the top 75 or so law reviews (plus New Mexico and Geo. Mason, who can pretty strong claims to the top 75, even if their law reviews aren’t there yet), using the Wash & Lee current “combined” stats, ranked by the number of articles, published that are predominantly about Federal Indian Law, and using symposium pieces, book reviews, and student notes as a tie-breaker.

The number before the law review name is the W&L ranking, the number following the name is the number of stand-alone articles published, and the rest should be self-explanatory.

Top 75

  1. (62) Arizona State (25) — Miller (2008), Berger (2005), Washburn (2004), Nakai (2003), Goldberg (2003), Hannah (2003), Zellmer (2000), Pearson (2000), O’Melinn (1999), LaVelle (1999), Pommersheim (1999), Suagee (1999), Tsosie (1999), Epps (1998), Koehn (1997), Meteer (1996), Miller (1996), Royster (1995), Joranko (1994), Limas (1994), Zion (1993), Trope (1992), Marsh (1992), R. Johnson (1992), Strickland (1992). 31 other pubs.
  2. (132) New Mexico (11) — Kunesh (2007), Smith (2005), Laurence (1998), Lee (1998), Reynolds (1997), Alexander (1997), Strickland (1996), Rice (1996), Klein (1996), Limas (1996), Luna (1996). 27 student papers and symposium papers. and 1 postscript.
  3. (65) Oregon (9) — Rosser (2008), Wildenthal (2007), Krakoff (2004), Braveman (2003), Miller (2001), Cross (2000), Ansson (1999), King (1998), Laurence (1990). 9 other pubs.
  4. (48) Washington (8) — Riley (2005), R. Johnson (1992), R. Johnson (1991), Royster (1989), Wilkinson (1989), Canby (1987), Barsh (1984), Barsh (1981). At least 20 student pubs, and 9 symposium pieces and book reviews.
  5. (41) Arizona (7) — Rosser (2005), Dussias (2001), Laurence (2000), Cross (1998), Winslow (1996), Vetter (1994), Clinton (1990). Five student pubs. Seven symposium pieces and book reviews.
  6. (42) Colorado (6) — Pommersheim (2000), Blumm (1998), Mergen (1997), Smith (1990), Royster (1988), Getches (1988). Six student pubs. Ten symposium pieces and book reviews.
  7. (16) Minnesota (6) — Washburn (2008), Getches (2001), Atwood (1999), Frickey (1996), Joranko (1993), Worthen (1990), Three student pubs.
  8. (24) North Carolina (6) — Clarkson (2007), Washburn (2006), Dussias (1999), Reynolds (1995), Worthen (1993), Reynolds (1984). One student note.
  9. (67) Nebraska (6) — Fletcher (2006), Dussias (2005), Pollman (2004), Snowden (2001), Atwood (2000), Brietzke and Klein (1999). 2 student pubs.
  10. (13) UCLA (5 soon to be 6) — Carpenter (2005), Goldberg (2002), Coker (1999), Goldberg (1997), Atwood (1989). Berger has one article forthcoming in 2009. Five student pubs. Five symposium pieces and replies.
  11. (4) Stanford (5) — Dussias (1997), Macklem (1993), Chomsky (1990), Wright (1985), Clinton (1981). Seven student pubs.
  12. (66) Utah (5) — Wilkinson (2006), Babcock (2005), Skibine (1995), Wood (1995), Wood (1994). 5 other pubs.
  13. (33) Wisconsin (4) — Pommersheim (1992), Wilkinson (1991),Williams (1986). Six student pubs and two other pubs.
  14. (6) California (4) — Villazor (2008), Riley (2007), Getches (1996), Frickey (1990). Four student pubs and two other pubs.
  15. (3) Columbia (4) — Riley (2007), Gould (2001), Gould (1996), Skibine book review (1996). Five student pubs.
  16. (22) Iowa (4) — Porter (2004), Demlietner symposium (2002), Guzman (2000), Carriere (1994). Four student notes.
  17. (37) American (4) — Florey (2006), Krakoff (2001), Jiminez (1998), McSloy (1994). Two student papers and one symposium paper.
  18. (2) Yale (3, soon to be 4) — Frickey (1999), Rosenn book review (1997), Benjamin (1996). Carpenter, Katyal, and Riley have one article forthcoming. Eight student notes and book notes.
  19. (1) Harvard (3) — Frickey (2005), Frickey (1997), Frickey (1993). Five student notes on Federal Indian Law and several “Recent Decisions” comments, and one book review.
  20. (52) Georgia (3) — Juliano (2003), Nicolas (2002), Brackel (1996). Seven symposium pieces.
  21. (10) Cornell (3) — Babcock (2006), Wilkins (2005), Prakash (2004). Four student notes.
  22. (75) Santa Clara (3) — Koenig (2008), Metteer (1998), Wilson (1990). 2 student papers.
  23. (54) Akron (3) — Burleson (2007), Iraola (2005), Green (2003). One student note.
  24. (20) William & Mary (3) — Berger (2004), Rosen (2002), Reynolds (1997).
  25. (31) Ohio State (3) — Bradford (2005), Dussias (1999), Atwood (1991).
  26. (14) Michigan (2) — Washburn (2006), Katz (2000). One student note (Kirsten Carlson’s note!), two symposium pieces, and five book reviews.
  27. (59) BYU (2) — Wilkinson (1996), Geier (1994). Six student notes and 1 symposium piece.
  28. (69) Michigan State/DCL (2) — Taylor (2007), Jones Quick (1997). 6 symposium pieces.
  29. (56) Buffalo (2) — Vogel (2007), Lowndes (1994). Five symposium pieces.
  30. (6) Penn (2) — Kades (2000), Newton (1984). Four student pubs.
  31. (21) USC (2) — Skibine (1993), Williams (1983). Three student pubs and 1 symposium piece.
  32. (18) Vanderbilt (2) — Bobroff (2001), Worthen (1991). Three student notes and 1 symposium piece.
  33. (9) Virginia (2) — Rosen (1998), D. Williams (1994). Three student notes.
  34. (11) Texas (2) — Cleveland (2002), Rosen (1999). One student note and 1 book review.
  35. (28) UC Davis (2) — Gould (1994), Skibine (1991). One student note.
  36. (60) Florida State (2) — Tsuk (2001), Guggenheim (1999). One student note.
  37. (61) Pitt (2) — Magliocca (2002), Dussias (1993). One book review.
  38. (29) Hastings (2) — Fletcher (2008), Risinger (1998).
  39. (40) Connecticut (1) — Hall (2004). Three student articles and 14 symposium pieces.
  40. (72) Catholic U. (1) — Newton (1982). Eighth student papers and symposium pieces.
  41. (17) Fordham (1) — Rosen (2000). Three symposium pieces.
  42. (11) Chicago (1) — Resnik (1989). Three student notes.
  43. (19) Duke (1) — Magliocca (2003). One student note and 2 symposium pieces.
  44. (64) IUPUI (1) — Tsosie (2001). Two symposium pieces.
  45. (42) Villanova (1) — Nelson (1994). One student note.
  46. (15) Northwestern (1) — Singer (1991). One student note.
  47. (26) B.U. (1) — Clinton (1989). One student note.
  48. (27) Emory (1) — Atwood (2002). One student note.
  49. (34) Houston (1) — Fletcher (2006). One student note.
  50. (56) Loyola LA (1) — Meteer (1997). One student note.
  51. (25) Illinois (1) — Baca (2004).
  52. (32) Cardozo (1) — Price (1991).
  53. (47) Geo. Washington (1) — Purdy (2007)
  54. (100) Geo. Mason (1) — Fort (2009)
  55. (49) Tulane (1) — Fletcher (2007)
  56. (36) Wake (1) — Florey (2008).
  57. (69) Pepperdine (1) — Mack (1993).
  58. (8) Georgetown (0) — Six student pubs.
  59. (35) Indiana (0) — Four student notes.
  60. (55) San Diego (0) — Three student notes.
  61. (51) Wash. & Lee (0) — Two student notes.
  62. (45) DePaul (0) — 1 symposium piece. Two student pubs.
  63. (71) Chapman (0) — 2 symposium pieces and 1 student note.
  64. (23) Notre Dame (0) — 2 symposium pieces.
  65. (53) Alabama (0) — 1 symposium piece.
  66. (73) Loyola Chicago (0) — 1 student note.
  67. (5) NYU (0)
  68. (30) Boston College (0)
  69. (37) Florida (0)
  70. (39) Washington University (0)
  71. (44) Brooklyn (0)
  72. (45) Cincinnati (0)
  73. (50) Hofstra (0)
  74. (58) Chi.-Kent (0)
  75. (62) SMU (0)
  76. (68) South Carolina (0)
  77. (74) Case (0)

The other list will follow when I get some more energy….

This entry was posted in Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Scholarship and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Federal Indian Law in General Law Reviews

  1. skibine says:

    Should Benjamin piece at Yale be considered an Indian law piece? Was the very gist of his argument that legislation concerning Native Hawaiians should be considered under strict scrutiny because in fact they were not at all like Native Americans?

  2. Pingback: Federal Indian Law in Other Indian Country General Law Reviews « Turtle Talk

  3. Pingback: Cardozo Law Conference on Employment Division v. Smith — No Indian Law Scholars « Turtle Talk

  4. Pingback: Addie Rolnick on the Promise of Mancari | Turtle Talk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s