I.

WHATISATRIBE
a. Mortonv.Mancari:hiringpreferencesgivenbytheUnitedStatesCongresswerenot
violativeoftheDueProcessClauseoftheFifthAmendment.
b. Importantbecausebeingatribeisabroadexceptionforspecialprogramsthatwouldbe
prohibitedunderthe5thand14thAmendment
II.

HISTORICALDEVELOPMENTOFINDIANLAW
a. Johnsonv.McIntosh(1823)
i. ValidityofIndianlandtransfersmadebeforetheRevolution
ii. UScourtswillnotrecognizelandsthatweretakenunderthetreatyidea.The
mostapparentpersontotreatywiththeIndianswastheBritishCrownand
individualsdidnothavethepowertotreatyorbuylandfromIndians.
iii. TheIndiansdidnotowntheland,insteadtheyhadtherightofoccupancy,so
theydidnothaveauthoritytogivethelandtoanyoneelse.
b. USsucceededtoalllandsoftheBritishCrown,andthereforetheUShasrightoftitleto
allIndianlands.
c. CongressisholdingthelandintrustfortheIndians.
i. Johnsonv.McIntosh(1823):IndividualacquiredlandtitledirectlyfromIndians
andtheotherindividualacquiredtitleinthesamelandfromtheUnitedStates
subsequently.Thequestioniswhosetitleprevails.Thecourtheldthatthe
Indianshavetherightofoccupancyinthelandnotthetitle.Thetitleintheland
belongstotheUnitedStatesassovereignconqueror.SincetheIndianshadno
titleinthefirstplace,theytransferredthelandwithoutatitle.Therefore,the
individualwhoacquiredthetitlefromtheUnitedStateshaspropertyrightinthe
land.Therightofoccupancywaslessthanatitleandwasnottransferable.
1. Viarightofdiscovery,Indianshavetherighttooccupywhile
AmericainheritsfeesimplefromEngland
a. Indianuseisnotfeesimple
b. ExtinguishablebytheUS
2. OtherwisetransferthroughprivatepartiesisnotrecognizedbyUS
courts
3. NonUSrecognitionoftitle=Indiansovereigntyrecognition
a. Thepersonwhopurchases[fromtribes]holdstitleunder
their[tribal]protection
b. AcknowledgestribescontrolIndianTitle
c. NopersoncanseverIndianTitleintoUStitle(similartohow
othersovereignsareheld)
d. CherokeeNationv.Georgia,30U.S.1(1831):Georgiaenactedlawsthatabolished
Indianrighttosovereignty,selfgovernment,andland.Thefederalgovernmenttookno
actiononbehalfofCherokeeandtheCherokeesfiledaclaimintheSupremeCourt.The
primaryquestionwaswhethertheSupremeCourthadjurisdictionoverthecase.
i. (Marshal)heldthattheSupremeCourthasoriginaljurisdictionoverdisputes
betweenthestates,anddisputesbetweentheUnitedStatesandaforeignstate.
ThecourthastodeterminewhetheranIndiantribeisastateorforeignnationor
someotherentity.ThecourtheldthatanIndiantribeisneitherastatenora
foreignnationbutratherislimiteddependentsovereign.
1. Atribedoesnothavetheattributesthatastateorforeignnationhas.
a. Unlikeastateoraforeignnation,anIndiantribecannotclaim
titlebutratherhastherightofoccupancyandissubservientto
thefederalgovernment.
b. Thecourtsdecisionwasasplitof2,2,and2.
i. TwojusticesheldthattheIndiantribeshaveno
sovereigntyatall;

III.

ii. twojusticesheldthattheIndiantribeswerelimited
dependentsovereigns,and
iii. twojusticesheldthattheIndiantribeswereforeign
nationswithalltheattributes.
e. TreatyofHopewell(handout)
f. Worcesterv.Georgia(1832):GAenactedalawthatrequiredanynonIndianresidentof
theCherokeeterritorytoobtainalicensefromthegovernor.Worcester,amissionary,
didnotobtainone.
i. ThecourtheldthattheCherokeenationisadistinctcommunity,occupyingits
ownterritory,withboundariesaccuratelydescribed,inwhichthelawsof
Georgiacanhavenoforce,andwhichthecitizensofGeorgiahavenorightto
enter,butwiththeassentoftheCherokeesthemselves,orinconformitywith
treaties,andwiththeactsofCongress.Tribesretainpowersofselfgovernment
andthelawsofGAcanhavenoforce.
ii. BIGIdea:statelawsarenotenforceableontheIndiansland.
g. BroadprinciplesderivedfromMarshalltrilogy[Johnson,CherokeeNation,Worcester
v.Georgia]
i. CongressexercisesplenarypoweroverIndianaffairs
ii. Indiantribesretainsovereign,thoughdiminishedinherentpowersoverthe
internalaffairsandreservationterritory;
iii. USpossessesatrustresponsibilitytowardIndiantribes.
h. Allotment&Assimilation(18711928)
i. CongressexpandeditsexerciseoflegislativepowerstokeeporderinIndian
country,toprotectIndiansfromhostilenonIndians,andotherwisetolegislate
forthenationalinterest.
ii. CivilizingtheIndians:TheBIAandtheReservationSystem
1. reservationswerecreatedbygovernmentasbestmeansofcivilizing
theIndian
2. 1887DawesGeneralAllotmentActprovidedforallotmentofthe
reservationsinseveraltytoindividualtribalmembersaspartofan
officialpolicytodestroytribalismthroughreductionofthetreaty
guaranteedtriballandbase.
3. BureauofIndianAffairstookunprecedentedcontrolofeveryday
Indianlife,seekingtosqueezeoutIndiangovernment,religion,and
culture.

i. TreatywiththeCherokee(1835):Handout
SOURCESOFANDLIMITATIONSONFEDERALPOWER/FEDERALTRUSTRESPONSIBILITY
a. U.S.v.Kagama(1886):In1885,asapopularreactionagainsttheCrowDogruling,
CongresspassedtheMajorCrimesActwhichextendedthejurisdictionoffederalcourts
toalistofsevenseriouscrimeswhencommittedamongIndiansinIndiancountry.The
Kagamacasechallengestheconstitutionalityofthisact.TwoIndianswereindictedfor
murderinganotherIndianontheHoopaValleyReservation.Kagamachallengedthe
MCAasbeingoutsideofCongresseslawmakingpower.
i. MCAupheld.CourtreliesonthepowersgrantedtoCongressintheCommerce
clause
ii. ItseemstousthatthisiswithinthecompetencyofCongress.TheseIndian
tribesarethewardsofthenation.Theyarecommunitiesdependentonthe
UnitedStates.
iii. ThepoweroftheGeneralGovernmentovertheseremnantsofaraceonce
powerful,nowweakand diminishedinnumbers,isnecessarytotheir
protection,aswellastothesafetyofthoseamong whomtheydwell.

b.

c.

d.

iv. CongressionalpowertocontroltheIndiansdoesntcomefromanEnumerated
PowerintheConstitution,insteaditisacombinationoftheCommerceClause
precedentandthewardguardianstatus.
U.S.v.Sandoval(1913):
i. Overruledadistrictcourtdecisionstattingthatalawmakingitacrimeto
introduceintoxicatingliquorintoIndiancountrywasinapplicabletotheNew
MexicoPueblos.
ii. ThemajorissuewaswhetherthePueblolandswereIndiancountryover
whichlegislativeauthorityofCongressextends.b/cthePuebloslandsunlike
reservationswereownedcommunallyinfeesimplebythePueblos.
iii. CourtdeterminedthattheUShasadutyofexercisingafosteringcareand
protectionoveralldependentIndiancommunitieswithinitsborders,whether
withinitsoriginalterritoryorterritorysubsequentlyacquiredandwhetherwithin
orwithoutthelimitsofaState.
iv. CongressisallowedtoapplytheprohibitiontothelandsofthePueblo.
LoneWolfv.Hitchcock(1903):
i. CreatesideaofPLENARYAUTHORITY/POWER
1. CongresshasplenaryauthorityovertheIndians.
2. absoluteauthoritywithintheconfinesofthegrantedpower.Solongas
doneingoodfaith
3. Thescopeorauthoritywithregardstotribesispolitical
ii. USwasbuyinguserightsoftriballand.andIndianCommissionerDavidJerome
wasgiventhetaskofgettingatreatyformedtoallowtheUStopurchasethe
land.Andthetreatyendedupgivingthetribes2milliondollarsthatwasplaced
intoanIndiantrustfundforhealthcareandeducation.
iii. CourtdeterminedthatCongresshadauthoritytodothisb/ctheyhavefull
administrativepoweroverIndiantribalproperty.Andtheyhaveplenary
authority,whichsolongasitisbasedongoodfaithandnopoliticalbadfaithis
shown,itisok.
iv. ThepowerhasalwaysbeenwithCongresstomaketreatiesandsinceboth
partiesagree,problemsmustbetakenupwithCongressexcludesStates,
Executive,andJudicialfromgettinginvolved
UnitedStatesv.SiouxNationofIndians,1980
i. SiouxNationclaimsthattheUSunlawfullyabrogatedtheFortLaramieTreaty
of1868,whichtheUSpledgedtheGreatSiouxReservation,includingtheBlack
Hills,wouldbesetapartfortheabsoluteandundisturbeduseandoccupationof
theIndians.
ii. USwasattemptingtoacquiretheBlackHillslandforminingofgoldandsilver.
TheSiouxrefusedtosell,andsoCongressenactedanappropriationsbill
allowingnoappropriationbeingmadeforsubsistenceoftheSioux.Asaresult
theUSrenegotiatedtheSiouxtreatygivingtheUStheBlackHillsportionofthe
land,whichhadtobeapprovedbyoftheadultmalesofthetribe,butwasnt.
This1876
agreementabrogatedthe1868one.
iii. SiouxclaimthegovernmenttooktheBlackHillswithoutjustcompensation.It
hadbeenacquiredthroughunfairand
dishonorabledealings.
iv. CourtdeterminesthattheLoneWolfCongressionalpresumptionofgoodfaith
indealingswithIndiansisnottheappropriatestandard.
1. Thequestionofwhethertherewasgoodfaithisfactualinnature,nota
presumption!
2. byexaminingthecongressionalcommitteereports,statements,and
otherevidenceitisconcludedthatthiswasnotingoodfaithandthe
tribeshouldbecompensatedfortheunjusttaking.

e.

f.

g.
h.

v. ThoughCongresshasplenarypower,acompleteeliminationofrightsbecomesa
takingandmustbejustlycompensated
vi. ThereisnotakingsolongasCongressistransmutingproperty(giving
propertyforproperty)
TeeHitTonIndiansv.UnitedStates,1955
i. PropertyInterestoflandgrantedbyPresidentandRevokedbyCongress
ii. AlaskantribesoughtcompensationforatakingbytheUSofcertaintimberfrom
Alaskanlandsallegedlybelongingtothegroup.
1. TheIssueinthiscaseiswhatisthenatureoftheTribesinterestinthe
land,ifany.
iii. Courtdeterminedthattheremustbeadefiniteintentionbycongressionalaction
orauthoritytoaccordlegalrights,notmerely
permissiveoccupation.
AndheretherewasnoCongressionalexpressiondeclaringthetribesrightof
occupancy,thereforetheywereonlyallowedrightofuseafterAlaskawas
boughtfromRussia,thuswhenCongresssoldthetimbertheyhadnorightto
compensationfromit.
iv. Indianoccupationoflandwithoutgovernmentrecognitionofownershipcreates
NOrightsagainsttakingorextinctionbytheUS
protectedbythe5th
Amendmentoranyotherprincipleoflaw,thusnocompensationisnecessary.
a. UnlessCongresshasexpresseddesirethatIndiantribehave
title,theymayhaveno5thAmendmentseparateclaim.
UnitedStatesv.NavajoNation,2003
i. involvestheIndianMineralLeasingActof1938,whichassignsthe
responsibilityofapprovingcoalleasesbetweentribesandprivateindividualsto
theSecretaryoftheInterior.Tribeisseekingtorecovermoneyforanalleged
breachoftrust.
ii. CourtdeterminedthattheIMLAanditsimplementingregulationsimposeno
obligationsresemblingthedetailedfiduciaryresponsibilitiessupportingaclaim
formoneydamages.
1. notrustrelationshipacknowledgedwhenastatutegrantslicensingto
theIndianswithneutralapprovalfromtheSecretary
a. amanagedassetisrequiredforatrustrelationship
b. Thefederalgovernmentneedstoholdsomethingfordutyto
arrive.
2. NOtrustrelationshipexists.Itisnotexplicitlystatedanddoesntexist.
a. WhyThisHoldingShouldProbablyBeWrong:atrust
relationshipisimplicitinallthingsdealingwiththetribe,and
unlessexplicitlyabrogateditexists.
b. Here,Ginsbergissayingunlessincluded,itdoesntexist.
Oppositeofwhatbeensaying!
Cobellv.Kempthorne(DCC2008)
PyramidLakePaiuteTribeofIndiansv.Morton,(DC1972)
i. TribechallengedaregulationissuedbytheSecretaryoftheInterior.The
regulationinvolvesaDambuiltaspartofafederalwaterdevelopmentproject
intendedtobenefitnonIndianirrigators.Tribecontendsthattheregulation
deliversmorewatertotheDistrictthanrequiredbyapplicablecourtdecreesand
statutes,andimproperlydivertswaterthatotherwisewouldflowintonearby
PyramidLakelocatedonthetribesreservation.TheTribesprincipalsourceof
livelihoodistheLake.
ii. SecretaryhasadutythatallwaternotobligatedbycourtdecreegoestoPyramid
Lake.Thereforeafiduciarydutyisestablished.

1.

IV.

USactingthroughtheSecretaryofInterior,haschargeditselfwith
moralobligationsofthehighestresponsibilityandtrustdealingswith
Indians, shouldthereforebejudgedbythemostexactingfiduciary
standards.
2. Tribalinterestsarefirstprioritywhenfiduciaryresponsibilityhasbeen
created(governmenthaspossessionofsomething:heretheyare
grantingwaterrights)
i. Ricev.Cayetano(1999):TheHawaiianConstitutionlimitedtherighttovoteforthenine
trusteesofthestateagencyknownastheOfficeofHawaiianAffairs(OHA).Theagency
administersprogramsdesignedforthebenefitoftwosubclassesofHawaiiancitizenry,
"Hawaiians,"definedasdescendantsofnotlessthanonehalfpartoftheracesinhabiting
theIslandsbefore1778,and"nativeHawaiians,"definedasdescendantsofthepeoples
inhabitingtheHawaiianIslandsin1778.Only"Hawaiians"mayvoteinthestatewide
electionforthetrusties.
1. Rice,whowasborninHawaiiandaHawaiiancitizen,didnothavethe
requisiteancestrytobea"Hawaiian"understatelaw.However,Rice
appliedtovoteinOHAtrusteeelections.AfterRice'sapplicationwas
denied,hesued,claimingthatthevotingexclusionwasinvalidunder
the14thand15thAmendments.
2. DCgrantedSJ.Courtexaminedthevotingqualificationswiththe
latitudeappliedtolegislationpassedpursuanttoCongress'powerover
Indianaffairs,andfoundthattheelectoralschemewasrationally
relatedtothestate'sresponsibilitytoutilizeapartoftheproceedsfrom
certainpubliclandsforthenativeHawaiians'benefit.
3. CoAaffirmed,findingthatHawaii"mayrationallyconcludethat
Hawaiians,beingthegrouptowhomtrustobligationsrunandtowhom
OHAtrusteesoweadutyofloyalty,shouldbethegrouptodecidewho
thetrusteesoughttobe."
ii.
SCOTUS:foundthattheCon.Provision,whichlimitedtherighttovoteforthe
trusteefortheofficeofHawaiianAffairstoqualifiedHawaiians,violatedthe
15thamendmentbycreatingaracebasedvotingqualification
1. Courtrejectedthestate'sargumentthatthevotinglimitationwasone
basedonancestry,notrace,concludingthatancestrycanbeaproxyfor
race(Itisthatproxyhere)
2. Respondent'sargumentthat"descendants...of[the]aboriginal
peoples"doesnotmeanthesamethingas"descendants...oftheraces"
is"underminedbyitsexpressracialpurposeandbyitsactualeffects"
3. NativeHawaiiansenjoynotribalstatus,buteveniftheydiditwould
makenodifference.Congressdoesnothavetheauthoritytoallowa
Statetocreateavotingschemethatusesraceasaneligibility
requirement.
j. Williamsv.Babbitt(9thCir.2011):limitsonMortonv.Mancari
PRINCIPLES&LIMITATIONSONTRIBALSOVEREIGNTY
a. Taltonv.Mayes,1896(tribesareindependentfromfeds)
i. Appellant,aCherokeeIndian,waschargedwithmurderofanotherCherokee
Indian,withintheCherokeeterritory.
ii. TribalpowerexistswhenCongresshasnottakenawaythatpower
iii. TribalpowerdoesnotcomefromCongress
1. 5thAdisnotapplicable
2. Othermattersthatareasovereignmatteraresovereigntyreserved
iv. Remember,Congresscantakeawaythatsovereignty

b.

c.
d.

e.

v. Indiantribespowertopunishtribaloffendersispartofitsownretained
sovereignty.Andwhentheypunishatribememberforviolatingtriballaw,they
areactingasnindependentsovereign.
UnitedStatesv.Wheeler,1978(Twoseparatesovereigns)
i. DefendantpledguiltyinTribalCourttodisorderlyconductandtocontributing
tothedelinquencyofaminor,andthenayearlaterhe
wasindictedin
federalcourtforrapearisingoutofthesameincident.Issueiswhetherthe
DoubleJeopardyClauseofthe5thAmendmentbarstheprosecutionofanIndian
infederaldistrictcourtundertheMajorCrimesAct,whenhehaspreviously
beenconvictedintribalcourtoflesserincludedoffense?
ii. TheDoubleJeopardyClausedoesnotapply.ThereforetheFederalGovernment
isnotbarredfrombringingitssuit.
1. Doublejeopardynotapplicablewhenboththefederalgovernmentand
tribalcourtshaveprosecutedanindividual
2. Boththetribeandfederalgovernmentaretwoseparatesovereigns
Indiancountry
MontanavUS(1981)***
i. Propertyinterestofariverbed
ii. CrowTribeofMontanaclaimstheauthoritytoprohibitallhuntingand fishing
bynonmembersoftheTribeonnonIndianpropertywithinthereservation
boundaries,b/cofitspurportedownershipofthebedoftheBigHornRiver,the
treatieswhichcreateditsreservation,anditsinherentpowerasasovereign
1. IssueiswhethertheUSconveyedownershipoftheriverbedtothetribe
bytreatiesandthereforecontinuestoholdthelandintrustforthe
Tribe,orwhethertheUSretainedownershipoftheriverbedaspublic
landwhichpassedtotheStateofMontanawhenitenteredtheUnion.
iii. Courtdeterminedthatthetreatiesfailtoovercometheestablishedpresumption
thatthebedsofnavigablewatersremainintrustforfutureStatesandpasstothe
newStateswhentheyassumesovereignty.
1. Thetreatydidnotexpresslyrefertotheriverbed,norwasanintention
toconveytheriverbedexpressedinclearandespecialwordor
definitelydeclaredorotherwisemadeplain
2. ThereforethetribecouldnotprohibitnonIndiansfromhuntingand
fishingonBigHornRiver
iv. Congressmustspecificallyconveytitletotheriverbed
1. ThereisapresumptionthatCongressdidnotintendtoconveythe
riverbed,whichisunlikeanyothertreatyreadings/interpretationsb/c
Indiansaresupposedtobefavored.
Stratev.A1Contractors,1997
i. authorityoftribalcourtsoverpersonalinjuryactionsagainstdefendantswhoare
nottribalmembers
ii. caraccidentonaportionofaNDstatehighwayrunningthroughanIndian
reservation.IndiansvehiclecollidedwithagraveltruckownedbyA1
Contractors,anonIndian ownedenterprisewithprincipalplaceofbusiness
outside thereservation.
iii. basedonMontanav.US,theTribalCourtlackedsubjectmatterjurisdictionover
thedispute
1. absentexpressauthorizationbyfederalstatuteortreaty,tribal
jurisdictionovertheconductofnonmembersexistsonlyinlimited
circumstances.
2. consentedto,ordirecteffectonpoliticalintegrity,economicsecurity,
orthehealthorwelfareofthetribe.

f.

g.
h.

i.

j.

iv. OpeningtheTribalCourtforheroptionaluseisnotnecessary toprotecttribal

selfgovernment;andrequiringA1todefendagainstthiscommonplacestate
highwayaccidentclaiminanunfamiliarcourtisnotcrucialtothepolitical
integrity,theeconomicsecurity,orthehealthorwelfareoftheTribe.
v. Tribalcourtshavenojurisdictionovernonmembersforasingletortofa
highwayautomobileaccident
PlainsCommerceBankv.LongFamilyLandandCattleCo.,Inc.:atribalcourthadno
jurisdictiontohearacasefordiscriminationagainstanIndianinthesaleofnonIndian
feelandlocatedonareservation.Thetribedidnothavethepowertoregulatelandsales
ofnonIndianfeelandlocatedwithinthereservation.
i. CourtdidntbothertoevengothroughMontanaAnalysis.
ii. RobertschosetodistinguishthepresentcasefromMontanabyfocusingonthe
landsaleinsteadoftheallegeddiscriminatoryconductbythebank.Sincethe
tribelackedtheauthoritytoregulatethesale,Robertsheldthatthelacked
jurisdiction.
Montanav.EPA(1998):http://elawreview.org/casesummaries/montanavunitedstates
environmentalprotectionagency/
WaterWheelv.LaRance(9thCir.2011):heldthatatribalcourthadjurisdictionovera
nonIndiancorporationanditsnonIndianpresidentthroughthetribesinherentauthority
toexcludeandmanageitsland.
i. Importantbecausethe9thCir.limitedtheapplicationofMontanav.United
Statestosituationsinvolvingnontriballandortosituationsinwhich
competingstateinterestsareatplay.
TribalAuthoritytoTax&RegulateinIndianCountry
i. Merrionv.JicarillaApacheTribe,1982
1. Tribeistryingtoimposeaseverancetaxonoilandgasproducedfrom
thereservation.Andthequestioniswhetherthetribehastheauthority
toimposethetax,andifsodoesitviolatetheCommerceClause.
2. Tribeisreceivingroyaltypaymentsfortheoilandgasfromtheleaseit
enteredinto,andMerionisclaimingthetribeisgettingdoublerevenue.
3. Courtdetermined:TribeMAYENFORCEitsseverancetax

unless

anduntilCongressdiveststhispower.Andthetax cannotbe
invalidatedonthegroundthatitviolatestheCommerceClause.
4. ThepowertotaxisanessentialattributeofIndiansovereigntyb/citis
anecessaryinstrumentofselfgovernmentandterritorialmanagement.
a. derivesfromtribesgeneralauthorityassovereignto
controleconomicactivitywithinitsjurisdiction
b. TribecantaxinIndianCountry.
TreatyAbrogation
i. UnitedStatesv.Dion,1986
1. DionwasconvictedofshootingfourbaldeaglesonhisIndian
ReservationinviolationoftheEndangeredSpeciesAct.Heclaims
thatthetribehasatreatyrighttohuntbaldandgoldeneagleswithinthe
reservationandthattheESAandtheEagleProtectionActdidnot
abrogatethattreaty.
2. SCdeterminedthattheESAandEPAdidabrogatethetreaty,thus
makingDionsusceptibletocharges.
3. TypicalTestforAbrogation:itmustbeclearandexplicit
a. Butitdoesnttakeexpressdeclarationineverysituationso
longasthereisclearandplainintenttoabrogatethetreaty
rights.
4. Congresscanlimitorendtreatyrights

a.

V.

ConductmustbeexpresslyprohibitedandwhetherCongress
intendedonprohibitingIndiansisexamined
b. StatutespecificallymentionsthatIndianscangetpermits
tohunt;soCtassumestheirconductisgenerally
controlledbythestatuteabsentanexplicitmention
k. TheStatusofIndianTreatiesinUnitedStatesLaw
i. CanonsofConstruction
1. Allinterpretationsaremadeinfavorofthetribe.
2. Totheextentthereisanyambiguity,thoseareresolvedinfavorofthe
tribe
3. UseIndianperspectivestoresolveanyambiguities(lookatitfromthe
pragmaticpointofviewoftheIndiansinresolvingthetwothings
above.Ifthetreatysayshuntingground,itislookedatasIndian
huntingground.)
l. TribalSovereignImmunity
i. KiowaTribeofOKv.ManufacturingTechnologies,Inc,1998
1. Tribedefaultedonanoteandwassued.Nothinginthenotesubjectsor
limitsthesovereignrightsoftheTribe.
2. CourtdeterminedthattheTribehastribalsovereignimmunity.
Congresshasnotabrogatedtheimmunity,andthetribehasnotwaived
it,thereforetheycannotbesued.
3. CourtdiscusseshowitisCongressjobtoaltertribalsovereign
immunitythroughexplicitlegislation.
a. whichtheyaresuggestingshouldhappenb/cofpresencenow
inenterprisesthatprovideservicestononIndians,andpersons
whoareunawareoftheirimmunity.
ii. Notespg410
1. Tribalsovereignimmunitydefensesarenotashieldagainstsuitbythe
USagainstatribe
2. TSIdoesntbarreliefwherethePrequestsinjunctiveordeclaratory
reliefagainstindividualtribalgovernmentofficialswhoallegedlyacted
outsidethescopeoftheirauthority.ExparteYoung
3. Mostcourthaveactedontheassumptionthattribesmaywaivetheir
sovereignimmunitytofacilitatebusinessdealingswithoutexpress
congressionalapproval
4. Differentthanthecaseofstates,becauseofthe11thAmendment,which
exemptsstatesfromgettingsuedinFed.Ct.w/owaiverofimmunity.
iii. Michiganv.BayMillsIndianComm,2014:
STATEAUTHORITYININDIANCOUNTRY&GAMING
a. RegulationofOnReservationFishing&Hunting:onceareservationhasbeensetaside
byafederaltreaty,agreement,statute,orexecutiveorderfortheuseandoccupationofa
tribe,statejurisdictionoverhuntingorfishingwithinthereservationgenerallyis
preemptedasanincidentofthecreationofIndiancountry
i. Steps:
1. IsthelandIndianCountry
ii. NewMexicov.MescaleroApacheTribe,1983
1. CanastaterestrictanIndianTribesregulationofhuntingandfishing
onitsreservation?
2. NMconcedesthatonthereservationtheTribeexerciseexclusive
jurisdictionoverhuntingandfishingbymembersofthetribeandmay
alsoregulatethehuntingandfishingbynonmembers.ButNM
contendsthatitmayexerciseconcurrentjurisdictionovernonmembers

3.

b.

andthatthereforeitsregulationsgoverninghuntingandfishingshould
alsoapplytohuntingandfishingbynonmembersonthereservation.
Courtdidabalancingtest:
a. statejurisdictionispreemptedbytheoperationoffederal
lawifitinterferesorisincompatiblewithfederalandtribal
interestsreflectedinfederallaw,unlesstheStateinterestsat
stakearesufficienttojustifytheassertionofStateauthority
Looksat:
i. traditionalnotionsofIndiansovereignty
ii. promotingselfgovernment
iii. tribalselfsufficiencyandeconomicdevelopment,
powertomanagetheuseofterritoryandresourcesby
bothmembersandnonmembers
iv. stateauthoritymustbeviewedagainstany
interferencewiththesuccessfulaccomplishmentof
thefederalpurpose
b. EventhoughNMmaybedeprivedofthesaleofstatelicenses
tononmembers,thefinancialinterestofthestateis
insufficienttojustifytheassertionofconcurrentjurisdiction.
c. noconcurrentjurisdiction.

IndianGaming
i. TheSupremeCourtsApplicationofPublicLaw280sRegulatoryProhibitory
Distinction
1. Californiav.CabazonBandofMissionIndians,1987
a. affirmedtribalsovereigntyovergamblingactivityonthe
reservation
b. Tribeconductsbingogamesonitsreservationandhasacard
clubwhicharebothopentononIndians.CAseekstoapply
itsstatelaw,whichdoesntentirelyprohibitplaying bingo,
butitonlypermitsthegameswhenoperatedandstaffedby
membersofcharitableorganizations.
i. CAisaPL280state,andwasgrantedbroadcriminal
jurisdictionoveroffensescommittedbyoragainst
IndianswithinallIndiancountrywithinthestate.
Andthegrantedofcivilregulatoryauthoritywas
morelimited.
ii. CourtdeterminedthattheStatesinterestin
preventingtheinfiltrationofthetribalbingo
enterprisesbyorganizedcrimedoesNOTjustifystate
regulationofthetribalbingoenterprisesinlightof
thecompellingfederalandtribalinterestssupporting
them.
c. Statejurisdictionispreempted.ifitinterferesoris
incompatiblewithfederalandtribalinterestsreflectedin
federallaw,unlessthestateinterestsatstakearesufficientto
justifytheassertionofstateauthority.cannotregulateabsent
expressionofCongressorsomeinterestofstate
d. PublicLaw280doesnotauthorizecivilregulatoryjurisdiction
overthetribes
i. WhilePublicLaw280appliescriminaljurisdiction
thereisadispositivedifferencebetweencriminal
prohibitoryandcivilregulatory(forinstancestate
taxation)

ii. Californiaalsopromotessubstantialgamingactivity
(viastatelottery),thusitregulatesinstead
ofprohibitsgamblingingeneral
iii. Therearecountervailingfederalpolicies
1. Indianeconomicdevelopment
2. Andthereisanobligationofthefederal
governmenttobringthetribesforward
2. TheCongressionalResponsetoCabazon:TheIndianGaming
RegulatoryAct
a. somewhatdiminishesthescopeoftheCabazonruling,giving
statesamoresignificantroletoplayintheregulationof
Indiangaming thantheCourtsaidwasnecessaryunder
establishedprinciplesoffederalIndianlaw.
b. Indiantribeshavetheexclusiverighttoregulategaming
activityonIndianlandsifthegamingactivityisnot
specificallyprohibitedbyFederallawandisconductedwithin
aStatewhichdoesnot,asamatterofcriminallawandpublic
policy,prohibitsuchgamingactivity.
3. IndianGamingRegulatoryAct
a. General:
i. ClassIsocialgamesareallowedsubjectsolelyto
jurisdictionofthetribe
ii. ClassIIBingo,lotteries,andpokerwithoutbank
canonlyprohibitintribesifentirestateprohibits
iii. ClassIIIeverythingelsemustenterintoa
state/tribalcompacttoallow
b. GainingalicensefromSecretaryofInterior
i. Getapproval
ii. Negotiateingoodfaithwiththestate
iii. Ifthestatefailstonegotiatetribethensuesthestate
c. SeminoleTribev.Floridastatesovereignimmunityfrom
IGRA
i. Congresscannotwaivestatesovereignimmunity
(11thAd)
ii. CongressrevisesIGRAandallowstheSecretaryof
InteriortograntIndiangamingwithoutStatecompact
1. ButnewIGRAsaysSecofInteriorwillnot
approveapplicationforgamingnoton
traditionallyoccupiedland.
ii. Nevadav.Hicks,2001
1. Whetheratribalcourtmayassertjurisdictionovercivilclaimsagainst
stateofficials?
2. Sheriffobtainedawarrantfromthestateandfromthetribal courtto
searchHickshomeonthereservationforillegallykilledbighorn
sheep.Nothingwasfoundduringthesearch,butsomeofhisproperty
wasdamagedduringtheprocess.Sohesuedthesheriffinindividual
andofficialcapacity.Heismakingaclaimforabuseofprocess,
violationofcivilrights,denialofequalprotection,denialofdue
process,andunreasonablesearchandseizure.
3. Courtconcludedthattribalcourtdidnothavejurisdictionoverthe
claimsagainstastateofficial.
a. tribalauthoritytoregulatestateofficersinexecuting process
relatedtotheviolation,offreservation,ofstatelawsisnot

VI.

essentialtotribalselfgovernment orinternalrelationsto
therighttomakelawsandberuledbythem
b. justb/conreservationdoesntmatter,andjustb/cinvolves
Indiandoesntmatter.
4. Thestatehasasuperiorinterestbecause:
a. Thedefendantisanonmemberstateofficial
b. Theofficialspurposeistoimplementanimportant state
goal(suchasprosecuteacrime)
c. Thematterwasoffreservation(offreservationcrime)
5. Thestatecanenterthereservationtoenforceitslawsoffreservation
6. ThinkofthiscaseasanarrowexceptiontoMontanatestassume
thisappliesnarrowlytothefactshere
iii. StateAuthoritytoTaxinIndianCountry:TheScopeofFederalPreemption
OverReservationEconomicDevelopment
1. McClanahanv.ArizonaStateTaxCommission,1973
a. Canstatesregulatetaxationoftribesonthereservation?
NO
b. IndianwholivedandworkedontheIndianReservationhad
herwagesgarnishedforastateincometax.Shefiledsued
claimingthatstatetaxwasunlawfulasappliedtoreservation
Indians.
c. AbsentCongressexplicitdivestitureofsovereignty,taxation
bystateentityisnotpermittedonthereservation.
d. thequestionhasalwaysbeenwhetherthestateaction
infringedontherightofreservationIndianstomaketheirown
lawsandberuledbythem.Williamsv.Lee
2. WhiteMountainApacheTribev.Bracker,1980
a. TribeorganizedtheFortApacheTimberCompany(FATCO)
thatmanages,harvests,processes,andsellstimber.Allofthe
activitiesareconductedonthereservation,whichwascreated
withtheaidoffederalfunds.USenteredcontractswith
FATCOtoharvesttimber,andFATCOcontractedwithsix
loggingcompaniestoperformcertainoperationsthatFATCO
couldnotcarryoutaseconomicallyonitsown.Statesought
toimposetwostatetaxesononeofthecompanies,Pinetop:a
motorcarrierlicensetaxandafuelusetax.
b. Pinetopbroughtactionclaimingthatfederallawprohibitedthe
impositionofthetaxesb/ctheactivitieswereconducted
exclusivelywithinthereservationandontribalroads.Tribe
agreedtoreimbursePinetopforanytaxliabilityincurred,so
theyarethePinthiscase.
c. Taximposedhereisnotvalid.
d. Ifeconomicburdenisprimarilyonthetribe,thenthestate
maynotreachintothereservationandapplyitstaxes!!!
i. inthecigarettecase,theburdenwasnotonthetribe,
itwasonthenonIndiansthatwerepurchasing
cigarettes.
TRIBALLANDS&LANDCLAIMS
a. CountyofOneidav.OneidaIndianNation,1985
i. AftertheTradeandIntercourseActof1793(whichsaidnoonecouldpurchase
landfromtheIndianswithouttheconsentoftheFederalGovernment),New
YorkStateenteredintoanagreementwiththeOneidaIndianNationconveying
100,000acreswithoutgovernmentalapproval.

b.
c.

ii. TheOneidasclaimthatthistransactionisvoidandthestateofNYhas unlawful

possessionoftheirlandandsoughtdamagesrepresentingthefairrentalvalueof
thatpartofthelandpresentlyownedandoccupied.
iii. CountyclaimsthattheyhavenoclaimunderFederalCommonLaw, andif
theydidhaveaclaimitwaspreemptedbytheNonintercourseActof1973,
andiftheydohaveaclaimtheStatuteofLimitationshasrun,theUSratifiedthe
unlawfulconveyancesbyfederallyapprovinglatertreaties,andthisclaimis
nonjusticiable.
iv. CourtDetermines:affirmthefindingofliabilityoftheCounty
1. Oneidashaveaclaimbasedonfederalcommonlawforviolationof
theirpossessoryrights.(theytalkaboutJohnsonv.McIntosh,
CherokeeNation,Worcesterv.Georgia)
2. NonIntercourseActdoesnotPreEmpt.
a. NIAdidnotstateanyremedialplanfordealingwith
violations,andneversaidanythingaboutremovingthe
commonlawrighttosue
b. Congresswouldhavetoexplicitlystateintenttopreempt.
c. Courtwillnotrecognizecasesaspreempting.
3. StatuteofLimitations:Thereisnofederalstatuteoflimitations
governingfederalcommonlawactionsbyIndianstoenforceproperty
rights.
a. IndianClaimsLimitationActof1982:
i. CongressforthefirsttimeimposedaSOLoncertain
tortandcontractclaimsfordamagesbroughtby
individualIndiansandIndiantribes.
ii. itestablishedasystemforthefinalresolutionofpre
1966claims.
4. Ratification:byapplyingthecanonsofconstruction,whicharerooted
intheuniquetrustrelationship,thetreatiesareliberallyinfavorof
Indians,andabsentanyexplicitstatutorylanguage,theapprovalof
priortreatiesdonotratifypreviousone.
5. Nonjusticiability:CongressplenarypowerinIndianaffairsdoesnot
meanthatlitigationinvolvingsuchmattersnecessarilyentails
nonjusticiablepoliticalquestions.
v. Righttooccupancyincludesfederalcommonlawrighttosueforenforcement,
thusCongressionalrevocationrequired
CityofSherrill,####
Solemv.Bartlett,1984:Bartlettwasaninmatewhocommittedrapeonaportionofa
reservationwhichhadbeenopenedforsettlementbynonNativeAmericansinthe
CheyenneRiverActof1908
i. CanBartlettcommitrapeonthereservation,butbeprosecutedforrapebythe
statecourt?No
ii. Bartlettcontendedthatthecrimehewasconvictedofoccurredonthe
Reservationandthestatedoesnothavejurisdictiontoprosecutehim.Thecrime
occurredonaportionofthereservationwhichhadbeenopenedbyCongressfor
settlementbynonIndians,butthiswasstillinIndianCountry,andthereforethe
STATEhadnojurisdictionoverhim.
1. ThefirstandgoverningprincipleisthatonlyCongresscandivesta
reservationofitslandanddiminishitsboundaries.Onceablockof
landissetasideforanIndianreservationandnomatterwhathappens
tothetitleofindividualplotswithinthearea,theentireblockretainsits
reservationstatusuntilCongressexplicitlyindicatesotherwise.
Diminishment,moreover,willnotbelightlyinferred.

2.

VII.

SCOTUSanalysisofsurpluslandactsrequiresclearcongressional
intenttochangeboundariesbeforediminishmentwillbefound.There
wasnolanguagestatingaclearcongressionalpurposetodiminishthe
reservationinthiscase.
d. OneidaIndianNationv.CountyofOneida,2dCir.2010[Handout]
TRIBALWATERRIGHTS;HUNTING&FISHINGRIGHTS
a. RegulationofOffReservationFishingandHunting
i. StatesgenerallyarefreetoregulateIndiansoutsideofIndiancountry,exceptfor
Indianoffreservationtreatyhuntingandfishing.Inafewinstancestribeshave
reservedoffreservationhuntingrights.
ii. UntiedStatesv.Winans,1905
1. rightsoftribetoaffectoffreservationhuntingandfishinggoesbackto
originaltreatyandreservationofrightsallowingtheIndianstogooff
reservationandcrossothersland.
2. reservationofthosenotgranted,youreservedrightsnotjustland.
b. NatureandExtentofIndianReservedWaterRights
i. Wintersv.UnitedStates,1908
1. assurestribestherighttousesufficientwatertofulfillthepurposes
oftheirreservations
2. IndiansweregrantedareservationinMontana,andthenthereservation
wasopenedupforsettlementbynonIndians,andtheIndiansonthe
reservationwerehavingtheirwateruseinterferedwithbythe settlers.
USbroughtsuitonbehalfoftheIndianstohavethesettlersenjoined
frominterferingwithwateruseonthereservation.
a. reservationofrightsforIndians.
3. Waterrightsthatexistedwiththelandstaywiththeland
4. FederalpoliciestocreateanagrarianlifestylefortheIndiansrequires
thatwaterrightsbegivenandkeptbytheIndians
5. Thewaterrightslastaslongasthereservation
ii. UnitedStatesv.Washington,W.D.Wash.1974
1. suitinvolvingtheextentofoffreservationtreatyfishingrightsfromsix
treatieswithprovisionssecuringtotheIndianscertainoffreservation
fishingrights.Treatyrightswerereservedtothedescendantsofthe
treatyIndians,withoutlimitationintime,exceptingasCongressmight
determine.Innegotiatingtreaties,anexclusiverightoffishingwas
reservedbytheIndiantribeswithintheareaandboundarywatersof
theirreservations,whereintribalmembersmightmaketheirhomesif
theychosetodoso;andthetribesalsoreservedtherighttooff
reservationfishing"atallusualandaccustomedgroundsandstations"
andagreedthatallcitizensoftheterritorymightfishatthesameplaces
incommonwithtribalmembers.
2. Indiansbelievedtheywerenotsubjecttostateregulationsofgameand
fish.LocalcitizenswantedtopreventIndiansfromcrossingtheirlands
tofish.
3. Indianswin:catchandseasonlimitsarenotgoingtoapply.And
Indianswillbeabletocrossprivatepropertytoreachtraditionalplaces
forfishing.
4. ***50%rule:nontreatyfishermenshallhavetheopportunitytotakeup
to50%oftheharvestablenumberoffish...andtreatyrightfishermen
shallhavetheopportunitytotakeuptothesamepercentage
c. PuyallupCases:

d.

e.

i. PuyallupTribev.DepartmentofGameofWashington,(PuyallupI):involveda
statebanontheuseofnetstocatchsteelheadtroutandsalmon.Despitetheban,
thetribescontinuedtousenetsbasedontheirtreatyrights.
1. Court:thetreatydidnotpreventstateregulationsthatwerereasonable
andnecessaryunderafishconservationscheme,providedthe
regulationwasnotdiscriminatory.
2. Afterbeingremandedtodetermineiftheregulationswerenot
discriminatory,thecasereturnedtotheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin
DepartmentofGameofWashingtonv.PuyallupTribe(PuyallypII).
ii. PuyallupII:staterestrictionsstruckdownasdiscriminatory.Douglasnotedthat
therestrictionsforcatchingsteelheadtroutwithnetshadremained,andwasa
methodusedonlybytheIndians,whereashookandlinefishingwasallowedbut
wasusedonlybynonIndians.Assuch,theeffectoftheregulationallocatedall
ofthesteelheadtroutfishingtosportanglers,andnonetothetribes
iii. PuyallupTribe,Inc.v.DepartmentofGameofWashington(PuyallupIII),1977.
1. MembersofthePuyallupTribefiledsuit,arguingthatunderthe
doctrineofsovereignimmunity,Washingtonstatecourtslacked
jurisdictiontoregulatefishingactivitiesontribalreservations.
a. WritingforamajorityoftheCourt,JusticeStevensheldthat,
despitethetribe'ssovereignimmunity,thestatecouldregulate
theharvestofsteelheadtroutintheportionoftheriverthatran
throughthePuyallupReservationaslongasthestatecould
baseitsdecisionandapportionmentonconservation
grounds.
Washingtonv.WashingtonStateCommercialPassengerFishingVesselAssociation
(WashingtonPassenger)
i. TheUnitedStatesinitiatedanactionseekinganinterpretationofIndianfishing
rightsundertreatieswithIndiantribesofthePacificNorthwest.TheCourtheld
thatthelanguageofthetreatiessecuringa"rightoftakingfish...incommon
withallcitizensoftheTerritory"wasnotintendedmerelytoguaranteethe
Indiansaccesstousualandaccustomedfishingsitesandan"equalopportunity"
forindividualIndians,alongwithnonIndians,totrytocatchfish,butinstead
securestotheIndiantribesarighttoharvestashareofeachrunofanadromous
fishthatpassesthroughtribalfishingareas.
ii. Thus,anequitablemeasureofthecommonrighttotakefishshouldinitially
dividetheharvestableportionofeachrunthatpassesthrougha"usualand
accustomed"placeintoapproximatelyequaltreatyandnontreatyshares,and
shouldthenreducethetreatyshareiftribalneedsmaybesatisfiedbyalesser
amount.
iii. TheCourtalsoheldthatanystatelawprohibitionagainstcompliancewiththe
DistrictCourt'sdecreecannotsurvivethecommandoftheSupremacyClause,
andtheStateGameandFisheriesDepartments,aspartiestothislitigation,may
beorderedtoprepareasetofrulesthatwillimplementthecourt'sinterpretation
oftheparties'rightsevenifstatelawwithholdsfromthemthepowertodoso.
Minnesotav.MilleLacsBandofChippewaIndians:MilleLacsBandofChippewa
IndianscededlandinpresentdayMinnesotatotheU.S.inan1837treaty.Inreturn,the
U.S.grantedtheMilleLacsBandcertainhunting,fishing,andgatheringrightsonthe
cededland.An1850ExecutiveOrderbyPresidentTaylororderedtheremovalofthe
MilleLacsBandandrevokedtheirusufructuaryrights.1An1855treatysetaside

1 A Civil Law term referring to the right of one individual to use and enjoy the property of another,
provided its substance is neither impaired nor altered.For example, a usufructuary right would be the right
to use water from a stream in order to generate electrical power. Such a right is distinguishable from a

VIII.

reservationlandsfortheMilleLacsBand,butdidnotmentiontheirrights.TheMille
LacsBandsued,seekingadeclaratoryjudgmentstatedthattheyretainedtheir
usufructuaryrightsandaninjunctiontopreventthestate'sinterferencewiththoserights.
TheDistrictCourtultimatelyruledthattheMilleLacsBandretainedtheirusufructuary
rightsunderthe1837treaty.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmed.Thecourtsrejected
argumentsthatthe1850ExecutiveOrderabrogatedtheusufructuaryrightsguaranteedby
the1837treatyandthatMinnesota'sentranceintotheUnionin1858extinguishedany
Indiantreatyrightsunderthe"equalfootingdoctrine."
i. DoestheMilleLacsBandofChippewaIndianshaveusufructuaryrightsonland
nowpartofthestateofMinnesota?
ii. Court:Yes.theCourtruledthattheMilleLacsBandofChippewaIndiansdoes
haveusufructuaryrightsthatwereguaranteedtothembythe1837treaty.A
iii. fteranexaminationofthehistoricalrecord,theCourtheldthatthe1850
ExecutiveOrderwasineffectivetoterminateMilleLacsBand'susufructuary
rights,thattheMilleLacsBanddidnotrelinquishits1837treatyrightsinthe
1855treaty,andthattheMilleLacsBand'susufructuaryrightswerenot
extinguishedwhenMinnesotawasadmittedtotheUnion.
f. EnvironmentalStatutes
CriminalJurisdictionOverIndianCountry
a. ExpansionofFederalPowerOvertheReservation
i. ExParteCrowDog,1883
1. representsoneoftheSCsstrongestaffirmationsoftheprincipleof
tribalsovereigntyannouncedintheMarshalltrilogy
2. defendant,anIndian,wasconvictedinadistrictcourtforthemurderof
anotherIndianfromhissamebandandnationthatoccurredinIndian
country.
3. DclaimsthatitwasnotanoffenseunderUSlaws,andthedistrictcourt
hadnojurisdictiontotryhim.
4. TheCourtsaidthatbasedonprevioustreatyconstruction,thelawsof
theUSdidnotapply.Andabsentaclearexpressionoftheintentionof
Congresstohavethemapply,theywillnot.
a. Courtsaid(pg155),Theywereneverthelesstobesubjectto
thelawsoftheUS,notinthesenseofcitizens,but,asthey
hadalwaysbeen,aswardssubjecttoaguardian;notas
individuals,constitutedmembersofthepoliticalcommunity
oftheUS,withavoiceintheselectionofrepresentativesand
theframingofthelaws,butasadependentcommunitywho
wereinastateofpupilage,advancingfromtheconditionof
savagetribetothatofapeoplewho,throughthedisciplineof
laborandbyeducation,itwashopedmightbecomeaself
supportingandselfgovernedsociety.
b. Therewouldbeadifferentpoliticalresponsehadthe Indian
killedanonIndian,b/catthistimeitwould beanoncitizen
killingacitizen.
c. Absentcongressionalstatute,crimeofIndianv.Indianisa
tribalmatter.Itispartofthe18281870DependentDomestic
Nationidea
b. MajorCrimesActof1885(pg157)

claim of legal ownership of the water itself.

c.

i. CongressenactedthisgivingtheUSjurisdictiontotryandpunishmurderand
otherseriouscrimescommittedbyIndiansagainstotherIndiansonthe
reservation.
ii. ExtendedjurisdictionofFederalCourtsto7seriouscrimesatthetime.but
nowitcoversmuchmore(seepg479ofbook)
1. Murder;rape;arson;armedrobbery;manslaughter,kidnapping,etc
2. appliesONLYwhentheperpetratorisanINDIAN
3. victimcanbeanIndianornonIndian
4. mustoccurinIndianCountry
iii. UnitedStatesv.Antelope,1977
1. TwoIndiansbrokeintothehomeofanonIndianwithintheboundaries
ofanIndianReservation,theyrobbedandkilledher.Theywere
prosecutedinFederalCourtundertheMajorCrimesAct.Theyare
claimingthattheMCAviolatestheDueProcessClauseofthe5th
Amendmentbysubjectingindividualstofederalprosecutionbyvirtue
oftheirstatusasIndians.IftheywerentIndiantheywouldonlybe
subjecttoIdahostatelaw,whichhasamorelenientsentence.
2. Courtsaysthisisnotracialclassification,theyarebeingprosecuted
underFederallawb/cofthelocationofthe offense,IndianCountry.
a. Respondentsweresubjectedtothesamebodyoflawasany
otherindividual,IndianornonIndianchargedwithfirst
degreemurdercommittedinafederalenclave.
3. DueProcesswasnotviolated.
JudiciallyImposedLimitationsonTribalJurisdictioninIndianCountry
i. ImpliedLimitationsonTribalCriminalJurisdiction
1. Oliphantv.SuquamishIndianTribe,1978
a. PetitionersarenonIndianresidentsoftheReservation,and
theywerechargedwithassaultingatribalofficerandresisting
arrest.
b. IssueiswhethertheIndiantribalcourthascriminal
jurisdictionoverthenonIndians.
i. CourtsaysNO!!!
ii. Indiansdonothavecriminaljurisdictionovernon
Indiansabsentaffirmativedelegationofsuchpower
byCongress
iii. Theirrightstocompletesovereignty,as
independentnationsarenecessarilydiminished
Johnsonv.McIntosh
c. Tribeclaimstheyhavejurisdictionthatflowsfromthe
TribesretainedinherentpowersofgovernmentoverthePort
MadisonIndianReservation.
d. IndianshaveNOcriminaljurisdictionovernonIndians.
e. Notes:Notaconstitutionaldecisionnoexceptionstolackof
criminalauthority
2. Durov.Reina:AnIndiantribemaynotassertcriminaljurisdictionover
anonmemberIndian.NonIndianscontendedthattheycouldnotbe
triedintheSuquamishIndianProvisionalCourteventhoughtheywere
residentsofthereservation.TheCourtagreed.
a. Courtnotedthatbyacknowledgingtheirdependenceonthe
USintheTreatyofPointElliott,theSuquamishwereinall
probabilityrecognizingthattheUSwouldarrestandtrynon
Indianintruderswhocamewithintheirreservation.

b.

IX.

Moreover,evenignoringtreatyprovisionsandcongressional
policy,theCourtheldthatIndiansdidnothavecriminal
jurisdictionovernonIndiansabsentaffirmativedelegationof
suchpowerbyCongress.
3. DuroFixCongressamendedICRAtogivetribalcourtscriminal
jurisdictionoverallIndians(bothmembersandnonmembers).
[upheldbyLara]
4. UnitedStatesv.Lara,2004
a. Acongressionalstatutewaspassedrecognizingandaffirming
theinherentauthorityofatribetobringacriminal
misdemeanorprosecutionagainstanIndianwhoisnota
memberofthattribe,authoritythatthisCourtpreviouslyheld
atribedidnotpossess.Tribalmemberassaultsafederal
officerwhileremovinghimfromthereservationpertribal
order.BothtribeandfedsprosecuteDandDclaimsviolation
ofthedoublejeopardyclause.
b. DoesCongresshavetheconstitutionalpowertorelax
restrictionsthatthepoliticalbrancheshaveovertime placed
ontheexerciseofatribeinherentlegalauthority?
i. YES.
c. Judicial[andexecutive]branchrestrictionscanberelaxedby
Congress.
i. PlenaryauthoritybelongstoCongress,nowhereelse,
andtheycanmakethesetypeofrestrictions
d. IndianscanprosecutenonmemberIndiansformisdemeanor
independentlyoffederalprosecution25U.S.C.1301(2)
d. CrimebyanonIndianagainstanonIndian
i. USv.McBratney(1882):SCOTUSfoundthatColoradohasjurisdictionofthe
crimeofmurdercommittedbyawhitemanuponawhitemanwithintheUte
ReservationandwithinthelimitsoftheStateofColorado.
1. McBratneyRule:nonIndianv.nonIndianGoesdirectlytostate
court
2. Federalcourtsandtribalcourtshavenojurisdiction
ReligiousFreedom
a. Lyngv.NorthwestIndianCemeteryProtectiveAssociation,1988
i. whethertheFirstAmendmentsFreeExerciseClauseprohibitstheGovernment
frompermittingtimberharvestingin,orconstructingroadthrough,aportionof
aNationalForestthathastraditionallybeenusedforreligiouspurposesby
membersoftribesinNWCA.
1. CourtdeterminesitdoesNOT.
a. theindividualswouldnotbecoercedbytheGovernments
actionintoviolatingtheirreligious beliefs;norwouldthe
governmentalactionpenalizereligiousactivitybydenyingany
personanequalshareoftherights,benefits,andprivileges
enjoyed byothercitizens.
2. TEST:cannotprohibit,norcanyoubecoercedintopursingother
beliefs,norcanyoubedeniedequalbenefitshowever,thisdoesnt
meanthegovernmentcannotintervene.
ii. Governmentactionsthataregeneralinintent[neutraltowards religion],that
burdenorevendestroyareligiouspractice,arenotaninterferencewiththeFree
Exercise
1. Onlyneutralityisrequired
iii. Discussion(criticism):

1.
2.

b.

IndianlandistobeheldintrustoftheIndians
TrustrelationshiprequiresthegovernmenttolookafterIndianwayof
life
3. Thus,somethingmorethanneutralityoughttoberequiredfromthe
government
ProtectionofAmericanIndianReligiousPracticesandBeliefs
i. EmploymentDivision,DepartmentofHumanResourcesofOregonv.Smith,
1990
1. ORlawprohibittedtheknowingorintentionalpossessionofa
controlledsubstanceunlessprescribedbyamedicalpractitioner.
SmithandBlackwerefiredfromtheirjobsb/ctheyingestedpeyotefor
sacramentalpurposesataceremonyoftheNativeAmericanChurch.
Theyweredeniedunemploymentcompensation
2. CourtupheldtheORlawstatingthatitwasconstitutionaland
consistentwiththeFreeExerciseClause.
a. whengovernmentisactingpositivelytowardsreligion:
compellingstateinterestisrequiredtoupholdtheact
b. whengovernmentisactingneutrallytowardsreligionthanthe
actionisacceptable
ii. Rupertv.USFish&WildlifeServ.(1stCir.1992):

Exam:TakeHome,24hours,Emailhimsohecansendittoyou.
Canprobablyanswerinpages,doublespaced
PutGWIDonexam,notname
Noneedtoquotefromthecases
TypesofQs:criminaljurisdiction,mancor
Q&A:

ConservationNecessity:SCinWashington,statehasinterestincommonnecessitylikewateror
salmon(survivalofthespecies,somethingthatisasharednecessity(lookup)
o Courtrejectedabalancingact
Reservationgeneratedvalue:tribebuildssomething(iecasino)toemploypeopleonreservation,
activitythatwillbringeconomicactivity
InMescalero,exampleofwherebothconservationnecessityandreservationgeneratedvalue
couldintersect