American Laws On Indigenous Reservations: Who Has Jurisdiction?

The legal landscape of the United States is a complex tapestry of laws and jurisdictions, with citizens subject to state, federal, and tribal laws. Native American tribes are considered sovereign nations, with the authority to govern themselves and establish their own laws and customs within their reservation borders. This sovereignty significantly influences the interaction between Tribal, state, and federal laws. While Tribal members must adhere to federal laws, the applicability of state laws is less clear-cut. This complexity arises from the dual citizenship of Tribal members, who are citizens of both their respective Tribes and the United States, resulting in a unique blend of legal rights and responsibilities.

Tribal members are citizens of their tribe and the US

The legal landscape of the United States is a complex tapestry of laws and jurisdictions, with many citizens subject to state and federal laws. This complexity is further nuanced when considering the legal status of Tribal members living on reservations. Understanding the legal intricacies of Native American reservations requires acknowledging that Tribal members hold dual citizenship as citizens of their respective Tribes and the United States. This dual citizenship brings about a unique set of legal rights and responsibilities.

Native American tribes are regarded as sovereign nations, which grants them the authority to govern themselves and establish their own laws and customs within the boundaries of their reservations. This sovereignty significantly shapes the interplay between Tribal, state, and federal laws. Each Tribe generally holds jurisdiction over its members, with the power to create and enforce its own rules and regulations, encompassing both civil and criminal matters. Tribal courts play a pivotal role in resolving disputes among Tribal members and between members and non-members.

However, Tribal jurisdiction is not absolute and is subject to a complex web of legal precedents and statutes. Federal law takes precedence in certain areas, and specific federal statutes, such as the Major Crimes Act and the Indian Country Crimes Act, delineate the allocation of jurisdiction between Tribal, state, and federal governments. Additionally, landmark Supreme Court rulings, such as Montoya v. United States (1901) and United States v. Wheeler (1978), have affirmed Tribal sovereignty and authority to prosecute their members, while also setting limits on their jurisdiction over non-members who commit crimes on reservations.

While Tribal members are subject to federal law, the extent to which they are bound by state laws is less clear-cut and depends on various factors. In general, on federal Indian reservations, only federal and tribal laws apply to Tribal members, unless Congress specifies otherwise. This means that Tribal members are exempt from state laws while on reservation land, and instead, their actions are governed by the laws established by their Tribes and federal legislation.

The dual citizenship of Tribal members as citizens of their Tribes and the United States underscores the intricate legal landscape they navigate. While they are subject to federal law, the sovereignty of Native American Tribes allows them to establish their own legal frameworks, which take precedence over state laws on reservation land. This dynamic gives rise to a unique set of rights and responsibilities for Tribal members, distinct from those of other US citizens.

Tribal sovereignty

The sovereignty of Native American tribes is dependent on, and subordinate to, the federal government. Tribal members are citizens of three sovereigns: their tribe, the United States, and the state in which they reside. They are also considered citizens in an international context, with the rights afforded to any other individual.

The US Constitution mentions Native American tribes three times, recognising their independent status and affirming their sovereignty. The three mentions are:

• Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States... excluding Indians not taxed."
• Article I, Section 8: "Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
• The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2: This amends the apportionment of representatives in Article I, Section 2.

The sovereignty of Native American tribes has been affirmed by several Supreme Court cases, including:

• Montoya v. United States (1901): Affirmed Tribal sovereignty.
• United States v. Wheeler (1978): Upheld Tribal authority to prosecute its members.
• Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978): Significantly limited Tribal jurisdiction over non-members who commit crimes on reservations.
• McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020): Ruling that the state of Oklahoma acted outside its jurisdiction when trying a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in 1997 for rape. The case should have been tried in federal court as the reservation had not been officially dissolved.

While tribal sovereignty is recognised, there are complexities and nuances to the legal landscape of Native American reservations. Tribal members must adhere to federal law, and in certain areas, federal law takes precedence over Tribal and state law. The extent to which Tribal members are subject to state laws depends on various factors, and there is a complex web of legal precedents and legislation that determines the interaction of Tribal, state, and federal law.

In summary, tribal sovereignty in the United States refers to the inherent authority of Indigenous tribes to govern themselves and maintain their unique cultures and identities within the country's borders. This sovereignty is recognised by the federal government and affirmed by the US Constitution and Supreme Court cases. However, the sovereignty of Native American tribes exists in a complex legal landscape, with interactions between Tribal, state, and federal laws.

Tribal laws cover the inner workings of specific tribes

Tribal law is distinct from federal Indian law. While federal Indian law governs the relationship between tribes and federal and state governments, tribal laws cover the inner workings of specific tribes. Each tribe has its own laws and government, structured similarly to the federal three-branch system. For example, a tribe may have an executive division (headed by a governor, president, or chief), a legislature (a tribal council), and a judicial branch (a tribal court).

Tribal laws are developed and applied by tribes or Indian nations to their members and territories. They are the laws that tribes develop themselves and apply within their reservations. Native American tribes are considered sovereign nations, which means they have the authority to govern themselves and establish their own laws and customs within their reservations. This sovereignty significantly influences how Tribal, state, and federal laws interact.

Each tribe has jurisdiction over its members, with the authority to establish its rules and regulations, including those related to civil and criminal matters. This means that, in many cases, it is Tribal law, rather than state law, that applies on reservations. Tribal courts play a significant role in adjudicating disputes among Tribal members and between Tribal members and non-members.

However, the power of Tribal jurisdiction is not absolute. The extent of Tribal jurisdiction is determined by a complex web of legal precedents and legislation, which outline the interaction between Tribal and state law. Federal law takes precedence over Tribal and state law in certain areas. For instance, the Major Crimes Act and the Indian Country Crimes Act are federal statutes that delineate the allocation of jurisdiction between Tribal, state, and federal governments.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled on several landmark cases that clarify the relationship between state and Tribal law, including Montoya v. United States (1901), which affirmed Tribal sovereignty, and Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978), which significantly limited Tribal jurisdiction over non-members who commit crimes on reservations.

Tribal courts

The sentencing process in tribal courts varies depending on the tribe and the nature of the case, but it generally incorporates traditional tribal values and customs. This may include a focus on rehabilitation and restoration rather than punishment, with sentences such as community service, restitution, or participation in traditional healing ceremonies.

The relationship between tribal courts and federal and state governments is complex and has been influenced by the federal government's changing policies towards Native American tribes. While tribal courts aim to promote tribal self-government and preserve Native American culture, they are limited in their jurisdiction and funding.

Federal law applies on reservations in certain areas

Native American tribes are considered sovereign nations, meaning they have the authority to govern themselves and establish their own laws and customs within their reservations. However, this sovereignty is limited, and tribal members are still subject to federal law in certain areas.

On federal Indian reservations, only federal and tribal laws apply to members of the tribe unless Congress provides otherwise. This means that tribal members are exempt from state laws while on reservation land. This exemption has led to situations where reservation laws directly contradict state laws, such as the allowance of casinos on reservations located within states that prohibit gambling.

Despite this sovereignty, federal law still applies to tribal members in certain areas. The Major Crimes Act and the Indian Country Crimes Act are two prominent federal statutes that delineate the allocation of jurisdiction between tribal, state, and federal governments. Federal jurisdiction applies to major crimes committed by or against Native Americans on reservations, actions involving interstate commerce, and any legal issue in which the United States is involved as a party. This includes issues such as voting rights, social security, and military service.

The Assimilative Crimes Act is another example of federal law superseding tribal law. This Act makes any violation of state criminal law a federal offense on reservations. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several cases that have helped clarify the relationship between state and tribal law, further shaping the legal landscape of Native American reservations.

Frequently asked questions