Tribal Consitutions:
Case Law:
(Please note: Cases are in PDF Format. Adobe Acrobat Reader - download here )
Jurisdiction
Oliphant v. Saquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) - Indian tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.
Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990) - Indian tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians.
Montana v. U.S., 450 U.S.544 (1981) - Indian tribes lack inherent sovereign power to regulate non-Indian actions on fee land unless they have entered into a consentual relationship with the tribe or the activity has or had a direct effect on the political integrity, economic security, health or welfare of the tribe.
National Farmers Union Ins. Company v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 (1985) - A federal question of a tribe's jurisdiction must first be determined by the tribal court (tribal exaustion rule).
Barker v. Menominee Nation Casino, 897 F.Supp 398 (E.D. Wis 1995) - Where federal and tribal courts both appear to have concurrent jurisdiction over civil a matter, the federal court must dismiss or stay action until the aggrieved party has exausted his or her tribal remedies (tribal exaustion rule).
Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997) - A tribal court lacked jurisdiction over a civil case between nonmembers arising out of a vehicle accident on a state highway traversing the reservation. Indian tribes lack civil authority over the conduct of nonmembers on non-Indian land within a reservation absent a consentual relationship or activities affecting the tribe's political integrity, economic security, health or welfare (Montana execption). Safe driving does not quality under exception.
Atkinson Trading Co., Inc. v. Shirley et al., 532 U.S. __ (2001). The Navajo Nation's impostion of a hotel occupancy tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation limits is invalid.
Nevada v. Hicks, (99-1994) - "Tribal authority to regulate state officers in executing process related to the off-reservation violation of state law is not essential to tribal self-government or internal relations to 'the right to make laws and be ruled by them.' The States interest in execution of process is considerable, and even when it relates to Indian-fee lands it no more impairs the tribe's self government then federal enforcement of federal law impairs state government".. Tribal court had no jurisdiction over section 1983 claims. No need to exaust claims in Tribal Court before bringing them to District Court because it is clear that tribal courts lack jurisdiction over state officials for causes of action relating to their official duties and would serve no purpose other than delay.
Gambling
Californian v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) - States are preempted from regulating gambling operations conducted by tribes on their reservations.
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
Tax
Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505 (1991) - A state that has not asserted jurisdiction over Indian lands under PL-280 may not tax sale of goods to tribesman occuring on land held in trust for a federally recognized tribe, but is free to collect taxes on sales to non-members.
Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 (1980) - State may require tribal seller to collect tax from sale to non-Indian.
McClanahan v. State Tax Comm'n of Arizona, 411 U.S. 164 (1973), Supreme Court exempted an enrolled member of the Navajo Tribe living and working on the Navajo Reservation from Arizona's income tax.
LaRock vs. DOR (232 Wis. 2d 474) Member of Menominee Tribe living and working on Oneida Reservation is not exempt from state income tax.
Habeaus Corpus
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) - Federal Habeaus Corpus under ICRA is limited to reviewing actions of tribal courts or police in criminal cases.
Return to Table of Contents