Indian Civil Rights Act

Definition

The Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) of 1968 is a landmark law that extends certain constitutional rights to individuals in Native American tribes, specifically guaranteeing civil rights protections similar to those found in the U.S. Constitution. This act was significant in defining the limits of tribal sovereignty and established a framework for addressing civil rights issues within tribal jurisdictions.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The ICRA does not allow for the same level of protection as the Bill of Rights; for example, it does not guarantee the right to a jury trial in tribal courts.
2. The act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin within tribal jurisdiction, but enforcement mechanisms can be limited.
3. While the ICRA provides certain rights, it acknowledges tribal sovereignty by allowing tribes to determine their own membership and governance rules.
4. Enforcement of the ICRA is primarily through federal courts, which can lead to tensions between tribal and federal jurisdictions.
5. The passage of the ICRA marked a significant shift in the relationship between Native American tribes and the U.S. government regarding civil rights and self-governance.

Review Questions

• How does the Indian Civil Rights Act relate to the concept of tribal sovereignty?
  • The Indian Civil Rights Act relates to tribal sovereignty by imposing certain civil rights protections on tribes while still acknowledging their right to self-governance. The act ensures that individuals within tribes have certain constitutional rights but does not undermine tribal authority to manage their own affairs. This balance illustrates the complexities of how federal laws can influence tribal sovereignty while aiming to protect individual rights.
• In what ways does the Indian Civil Rights Act differ from the U.S. Bill of Rights in terms of enforcement and application within tribal courts?
  • The Indian Civil Rights Act differs from the U.S. Bill of Rights primarily in its limited enforcement mechanisms and its application within tribal courts. While the Bill of Rights guarantees a wide range of protections including jury trials and due process, the ICRA does not guarantee these rights in tribal jurisdictions, leading to potential disparities in how civil rights are upheld. Furthermore, enforcement of ICRA provisions often occurs through federal courts rather than within tribal justice systems, creating challenges for tribes wishing to maintain their sovereignty.
• Evaluate the impact of Public Law 280 on the effectiveness of the Indian Civil Rights Act and tribal justice systems.
  • Public Law 280 significantly impacts both the effectiveness of the Indian Civil Rights Act and tribal justice systems by granting states jurisdiction over criminal and civil matters on some tribal lands. This intrusion complicates how tribes enforce their own laws and uphold civil rights under the ICRA since state laws may conflict with tribal regulations. The result is a patchwork of legal authority that can undermine tribal sovereignty and complicate justice for individuals seeking redress under both state and federal laws.

Related terms

Tribal Sovereignty: The inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States, independent from federal and state governments.

Public Law 280:

A federal law enacted in 1953 that granted certain states jurisdiction over criminal and civil matters on tribal lands, impacting tribal sovereignty.

Bill of Rights: The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantee individual rights and liberties, many of which were modeled in the Indian Civil Rights Act.