TheMontanaline of cases has been criticized by virtually every scholar that discusses them, particularly because they represent a constraint on tribal sovereignty by judicial fiat, rather than by legislative action, contrary to more than a century-and-a-half of Supreme Court precedent. Consider, on the other hand, that nonmembers generally have no role in tribal government, which may result in tribal regulation without representation.

State your position on the following questions.

• Does this justify the Supreme Court's issuance of theMontanaline?If the concern is valid, but you think the Supreme Court is not the appropriate entity to address it, how and by whom ought it be addressed? State your position and support your response.
• Are there parallels between nonmembers in Indian Country and nonresidents in states (e.g., out of state students) or foreign nationals within the federal system? state your position