9.2 State Jurisdiction in Indian Country
3 min read•august 9, 2024
State jurisdiction in Indian Country is complex and often limited. gave some states criminal and civil jurisdiction on reservations, creating tension with . This shift aimed to address perceived lawlessness but complicated tribal-state relations.
Taxation and environmental regulation are key areas of tribal-state interaction. While states generally can't tax tribes or members on reservations, non-Indians may be subject to state taxes. Tribes and states often cooperate on environmental issues, balancing sovereignty with shared concerns.
Tribal Sovereignty and Jurisdiction
Defining Indian Country and Tribal Sovereignty
Top images from around the web for Defining Indian Country and Tribal Sovereignty
List of Indian reservations in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Indigenous Tribes of the United States • FamilySearch View original
Is this image relevant?
List of Indian reservations in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Defining Indian Country and Tribal Sovereignty
List of Indian reservations in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Indigenous Tribes of the United States • FamilySearch View original
Is this image relevant?
List of Indian reservations in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Indian Country encompasses reservations, dependent Indian communities, and allotments
- Tribal sovereignty refers to inherent powers of self-government retained by Native American tribes
- Tribes exercise authority over internal affairs and some external matters within their territories
- Sovereignty includes powers to determine tribal membership, regulate domestic relations, and levy taxes
- United States recognizes tribes as "domestic dependent nations" with a unique legal status
Federal Plenary Power and Its Impact
- Plenary power grants Congress broad authority over Indian affairs
- Stems from the Commerce Clause and Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution
- Allows Congress to limit, modify, or eliminate tribal sovereign powers
- Has been used to pass laws affecting tribal governance, land use, and economic development
- Supreme Court decisions have upheld federal plenary power (, 1831)
Types of Jurisdiction in Indian Country
- Criminal jurisdiction varies based on the identity of the offender and victim, and the nature of the crime
- (1885) grants federal jurisdiction over serious offenses committed by Indians
- Civil jurisdiction encompasses disputes involving contracts, torts, and property rights
- Tribal courts generally have civil jurisdiction over Indians and some non-Indians on tribal lands
- Regulatory jurisdiction allows tribes to enforce laws related to zoning, licensing, and environmental protection
- State jurisdiction in Indian Country is limited unless specifically authorized by Congress
State Jurisdiction in Indian Country
Public Law 280 and Its Implications
- Enacted in 1953, Public Law 280 transferred federal criminal and civil jurisdiction to certain states
- Mandatory states include California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Alaska (upon statehood)
- Optional states could assume jurisdiction through state legislative action
- Aimed to address perceived lawlessness on reservations and reduce federal expenditures
- Created jurisdictional complexities and strained tribal-state relations
- Tribes can request retrocession of state jurisdiction back to federal government
Taxation and Economic Considerations
- States generally cannot tax tribes or tribal members for on-reservation activities
- Non-Indians and non-member Indians may be subject to state taxation on reservations
- Tribal-state tax agreements help resolve conflicts and provide revenue sharing
- State sales taxes often apply to non-Indian purchases on reservations
- Property taxes on reservation land held in trust by federal government are prohibited
- Cigarette taxes have been a contentious issue (, 1980)
Environmental Regulation and Tribal-State Cooperation
- Tribes have authority to regulate environmental matters within their territories
- EPA treats tribes as states for purposes of implementing federal environmental laws
- Tribal-state partnerships address cross-border environmental issues (water quality, air pollution)
- States may have limited jurisdiction over non-Indian activities affecting reservation environments
- Cooperative agreements between tribes and states enhance environmental protection efforts
- Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act allow tribes to set water and air quality standards
Bryan v. Itasca County: A Landmark Decision
- 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case clarified limits of state civil regulatory authority in Indian Country
- Involved Minnesota's attempt to impose property tax on mobile home owned by tribal member
- Court ruled Public Law 280 did not grant states general civil regulatory authority over tribes
- Established distinction between civil adjudicatory and civil regulatory jurisdiction
- Reinforced tribal sovereignty and limited state interference in tribal affairs
- Influenced subsequent cases involving state attempts to regulate tribal activities (, 1987)
Key Terms to Review (23)
Bryan v. Itasca County: Bryan v. Itasca County is a significant U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1976, which addressed the jurisdiction of state governments over Native American tribes in relation to taxation and regulatory authority. The case determined that states do not have the authority to impose property taxes on Indian lands held in trust for tribal members, reinforcing tribal sovereignty and the principle of limited state jurisdiction in Indian Country.
California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians: California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1987 that addressed the issue of state jurisdiction over tribal lands and activities, particularly in relation to gambling operations. The Court ruled that states do not have the authority to regulate gaming on tribal lands when such activities are permitted under tribal law, reinforcing tribal sovereignty and self-governance in Indian Country.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1831, in which the Court ruled that Native American tribes were not sovereign nations but rather 'domestic dependent nations' under the protection of the United States. This case marked a significant moment in the evolving relationship between tribal governments and federal authority, highlighting the limited recognition of tribal sovereignty and the subsequent implications for Native American rights.
Co-sovereignty: Co-sovereignty refers to the shared sovereignty between Native American tribes and state or federal governments, recognizing the legal authority and rights of both entities in certain matters. This concept acknowledges the unique political status of tribal nations as distinct sovereign entities while allowing for interactions with state and federal jurisdictions. The relationship established through co-sovereignty aims to balance the power and responsibilities of governing bodies in a way that respects tribal self-determination and cultural autonomy.
Cross-deputization: Cross-deputization is a legal process that allows law enforcement officers from one jurisdiction to enforce laws in another jurisdiction, particularly between tribal and state law enforcement agencies. This arrangement helps address jurisdictional challenges in Indian Country by enabling better cooperation and coordination in law enforcement efforts, ensuring that both tribal and state officers can effectively respond to crime and maintain public safety.
Indian Civil Rights Act: The Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) of 1968 is a federal law that extends certain constitutional rights to individuals in Indian Country, aiming to protect the civil liberties of Native Americans within tribal governments. This act established a framework for addressing individual rights while still recognizing the sovereignty of tribes, creating a balance between federal oversight and tribal self-governance.
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act: The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, passed in 1975, allows Native American tribes greater autonomy in managing their own affairs, including education and social services. This act marked a significant shift from previous federal policies by recognizing the rights of tribes to self-governance and control over federal funds allocated for their communities.
Intergovernmental relations: Intergovernmental relations refer to the interactions and relationships between different levels of government, including tribal, state, and federal authorities. This term highlights how these entities cooperate, negotiate, and sometimes clash over jurisdictional issues, policy implementation, and resource management. In the context of Native American governance, these relationships are crucial for understanding the dynamics of power, sovereignty, and the challenges faced by tribal nations in navigating the complex legal landscape.
Jurisdictional authority: Jurisdictional authority refers to the legal power or right of a governmental entity to govern, enforce laws, and adjudicate matters within a specified geographic area or over certain individuals. This term is particularly significant in understanding the complex relationship between state governments and Native American tribes, as it outlines who has the legal authority to manage and prosecute offenses occurring within Indian Country.
Major Crimes Act: The Major Crimes Act is a federal law enacted in 1885 that grants the federal government jurisdiction over specific serious crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal lands. This law was established to address the limitations of tribal sovereignty in handling such crimes and has significantly influenced the legal landscape surrounding tribal authority and jurisdiction.
McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona: McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case from 1973 that addressed the taxation rights of states over Native American tribes and their members. The case established that states do not have the authority to impose income taxes on tribal members living on their own reservations, reinforcing the principle of tribal sovereignty and self-governance.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a federal law enacted in 1990 that provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, including human remains, funerary objects, and sacred items, to their respective tribes. This act recognizes the rights of Native American tribes to reclaim their ancestors' remains and cultural heritage, while also addressing the historical injustices faced by these communities.
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta: Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta is a significant U.S. Supreme Court case from 2022 that addressed the issue of state jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Native individuals against Native Americans in Indian Country. This ruling clarified the extent to which states have authority to prosecute crimes occurring on tribal lands, impacting the balance of state and federal jurisdiction in these areas.
Public Law 280: Public Law 280 is a federal law enacted in 1953 that allowed certain states to assume jurisdiction over criminal and civil matters on Native American reservations without the consent of the tribes. This legislation marked a significant shift in the balance of power between tribal, state, and federal governments, impacting tribal sovereignty and governance.
Rights of Indian Nations: The rights of Indian nations refer to the legal and political recognition of the sovereignty and self-determination of Native American tribes within the United States. These rights allow tribes to govern themselves, create their own laws, and manage their internal affairs, distinguishing their authority from that of state and federal governments.
Treaty of Fort Laramie: The Treaty of Fort Laramie, signed in 1851, was an agreement between the United States and various Native American tribes to establish peace and define territorial boundaries in the Great Plains. It aimed to ensure safe passage for settlers moving westward while recognizing tribal lands, though its terms were often violated by the U.S. government.
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848, ending the Mexican-American War and leading to significant territorial changes in North America. This treaty resulted in the United States acquiring large territories that are now part of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, profoundly impacting Native American tribes within those areas by altering their land rights and governance.
Tribal citizenship: Tribal citizenship refers to the legal recognition of an individual's membership within a specific Native American tribe, often determining their rights and privileges as a member. This status can influence various aspects of life, such as access to tribal services, participation in governance, and eligibility for benefits. Understanding this concept is crucial as it intersects with state jurisdiction and the unique legal frameworks governing Native American tribes.
Tribal court: A tribal court is a judicial system established by a Native American tribe to resolve disputes and administer justice according to the tribe's own laws and customs. These courts operate independently from state and federal courts, providing a crucial means for tribes to exercise their sovereign authority and uphold their cultural values. Tribal courts often handle matters involving family law, criminal offenses, and tribal governance, reflecting the unique legal traditions of the tribe.
Tribal criminal code: A tribal criminal code is a set of laws enacted by a Native American tribe to define and regulate criminal offenses and procedures within their jurisdiction. This code allows tribes to exercise their sovereignty by establishing their own legal framework for addressing crimes committed on tribal lands, reflecting their unique cultural values and community standards.
Tribal law enforcement: Tribal law enforcement refers to the various policing agencies and officials operating within Native American tribes that enforce tribal laws and regulations. These agencies have the authority to maintain order, prevent crime, and investigate offenses on tribal lands, working independently or in cooperation with state and federal law enforcement when necessary.
Tribal sovereignty: Tribal sovereignty refers to the inherent authority of Indigenous tribes to govern themselves, make laws, and manage their own affairs independent of external control. This concept is crucial as it acknowledges the unique legal status of tribes as distinct political entities within the United States, influencing their relationships with federal and state governments.
Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation: Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case from 1980 that addressed the authority of state governments over Indian tribes and their reservations. The decision clarified the extent of state jurisdiction in Indian Country, particularly regarding taxation and regulatory powers, affirming the limited scope of state authority over tribal affairs while recognizing certain exceptions.