Abstract
In Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, the influence of sovereign citizen pseudolaw on Indigenous sovereignty advocacy is increasingly visible. Such influence was apparent in the referendum on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice and COVID-19 protests. It also recurs in legal claims and native title disputes. These developments are concerning. In this article, we explain how sovereign citizen pseudolaw damages Indigenous peoples and communities, including by undermining their efforts to obtain state recognition of their laws and threatening the prospect of broader political reform. To make this argument, we draw on William Twining's scholarship on legal pluralism to differentiate state law from non-state and illegal legal orders. In doing so, we emphasise the distinctions between Indigenous legal orders as a non-state legal order and sovereign citizen pseudolaw as an illegal legal order. A pluralistic lens helps appreciate the distinctions between these legal orders and helps recognise Indigenous rights while cautioning against the adoption of spurious sovereign citizen pseudolaw.