In 1982, after decades of determined mobilization by Aboriginal groups and their allies, the government of Canada formally recognized Aboriginal rights within its Constitution. The move reflected a consensus that states should and could use constitutionally enshrined group rights to protect and accommodate subnational groups within their borders. Decades later, however, almost no one is happy with the current state of Aboriginal rights in Canada. To some, these rights go too far; for others, they do not go far enough; still others contend that these rights merely perpetuate the ongoing projects of assimilation and colonization. In Uncertain Accommodation, Dimitrios Panagos argues that the failure of Canada’s Aboriginal rights jurisprudence is ultimately rooted in our inability to agree on what aboriginality means. Through incisive analysis of judicial decisions, legal submissions, and academic debates, he reveals the plurality of conceptions of aboriginality put forth over the past three decades and shows that the singular vision of aboriginality promoted and protected is that of the Supreme Court of Canada itself. Because this vision is fundamentally different from that of Aboriginal people, the court’s jurisprudence not only fails to protect their interests, it actually threatens them. Panagos concludes that there can be no justice as long as the state continues to safeguard a set of values and interests defined by non-Aboriginal people.