[toast0]

My understanding is that US case law suggests "Congress has the power to abrogate Indians' treaty rights, ... though we usually insist that Congress clearly express its intent to do so." [1]

If the treaty is violated without clear intent by Congress, it would still be in force, and the affected Tribe or Tribes could sue for performance, possibly even affected persons, if they are deemed to have standing.

I don't quite see the point of a treaty if it terminates once it's violated though?

[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/679/ (sorry, I don't think I can link directly to the text in the opinion)

[Kamq]

> If the treaty is violated without clear intent by Congress, it would still be in force, and the affected Tribe or Tribes could sue for performance, possibly even affected persons, if they are deemed to have standing.

This is probably the part I was missing. That seems to be a departure from regular international relations standards, but there's a couple of clauses in the constitution specifically about relations with natives, so it makes sense there's some subtleties to the subject.

Thanks for the link, I appreciate it.