Skip to content
Back to top

Tribal-State Collaborations

Jurisdiction

Filter:  AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY

Alabama

General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Apply, No State Jurisdiction

Legislation

No Public Law 280 or similar legislation

Case Law

Sheffield v. Tullis, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14110 (S. D. Ala. 1998)

Alaska

Mandatory Public Law 280 State Jurisdiction

In Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 522 U.S. 520 (1998), the United States Supreme Court removed the Indian country status of most lands held by Alaskan Natives.  Since Public Law 280 applies within “Indian country,” that decision left Public Law 280 irrelevant to much of Alaska.  However, there are still Native allotments and Native townsites that likely qualify as Indian country, leaving some room for the continued operation of Public Law 280.  See Geoffrey D. Strommer & Stephen D. Osborne, “Indian Country” and the Nature and Scope of Tribal Self-Government in Alaska, 22 Alaska L. Rev. 1 (2005).

For more information, see Tribal Jurisdiction in Alaska: Chila Protection, Adoption, Juvenile Justice, Family Violence and Community Safety, Alaska Legal Services Corporation, 2012. Also available at www.aktribaljudges.com

Legislation

Alas. Const., art. XII, § 12

P.L. 85-615 § 1, 72 Stat. 545 (Aug. 8, 1958)

Public Law 280 -- 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 25 U.S.C. 1360, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-22

P.L. 91-523 § 1, Nov. 25, 1970; 84 Stat. 1358; 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a) (excepting Metlakatla Indian Tribe from state criminal jurisdiction).

25 U.S.C. § 1918 (Two Native villages, Barrow and Chevak, have successfully petitioned for reassumption of exclusive jurisdiction over Indian Child Welfare Act matters. 64 Fed. Reg. 36,391 (July 6, 1999).   The Metlakatla Indian Community has successfully petitioned for reassumption of concurrent jurisdiction over such matters.  58 Fed. Reg. 11,766 (February 26, 1993), as corrected at 58 Fed. Reg. 16,448 (March 26, 1993).

Case Law

2004 Op. Alas. Att’y Gen. No. 1

In the Matter of C.R.H., 29 P.3d 849 (Alas. 2001)

John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738 (Alas. 1999)

Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 522 U.S. 520 (1998)

Jones v. State, 936 P.2d 1263 (Alask. Ct. App. 1997)

Hydaburg Coop. Ass’n v. Hydaburg Fisheries, 925 P.2d 246 (Alas. 1996)

Booth v. Alaska, 903 P.2d 1079 (Alas. Ct. App. 1995)

Nenana Fuel Co. Inc. v. Native Village of Venetie, 834 P.2d 1229 (Alas. 1992)

Native Village of Venetie I.R.A. Council v. Alaska, 944 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 522 U.S. 520 (1998)

Harrison v. State, 784 P.2d 681 (Alas. Ct. App. 1989)

Fawcett v. Fawcett, 13 Indian L. Rep. 5063 (Alas. Super. Ct. 1986)

Heffner v. State, 633 P.2d 264 (Alas. 1981)

State of Alaska, Dep’t Pub. Works v. Agli, 472 F. Supp. 70 (D.C. Alas. 1979)

Calista Corp. v. Mann, 564 P.2d 53 (Alas. 1977)

Ollestead v. Native Village of Tyonek, 560 P.2d 31 (Alas. 1977)

State v. Lewis, 559 P.2d 630 (Alas. 1977)

Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60 (1962)

Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 369 U.S. 45 (1962)

United States v. Booth, 161 F. Supp. 269 (D. Alas. 1958)

Arizona

General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Apply, No State Jurisdiction

In 1973, Arizona attempted to assume jurisdiction under Public Law 280 over air and water pollution only. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 36-1801, 36-1856 (1973 Supp.). Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976) made it clear that Public Law 280 did not encompass state regulatory jurisdiction of the type that Arizona had attempted to exercise. Arizona has since repealed its laws assuming jurisdiction over air and water pollution. Ariz. Laws 1986, § 19, Subsec. B (1987) (water pollution); Ariz. Laws 2003, § 4 (2003) (air pollution).

Legislation

Ariz. Const., art. 20, ¶ 4

No current Public Law 280 or similar legislation

Case Law

State v. Zaman, 194 Ariz. 442 (1999)

State v. Lupe, 889 P.2d 4 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994)

Tohono O’odham Nation v. Schwartz, 837 F. Supp. 1024 (D. Ariz. 1993)

Dixon v. Picopa Constr. Co., 160 Ariz. 251 (1989)

State v. Flint, 157 Ariz. 227 (1989)

Val/Del, Inc. v. Superior Court, 145 Ariz. 558, 703 P.2d 502 (Ariz. App. 1985)

United States v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, 144 Ariz. 265 (1985)

Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona, 463 U.S. 545 (1983)

Francisco v. State, 113 Ariz. 427 (1976)

McClanahan v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n, 411 U.S. 164 (1973)

Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959)

In re Denteclaw, 83 Ariz. 299 (1958)

Arkansas

Not Applicable.

California

Mandatory Public Law  280 State Jurisdiction

Legislation

Public Law 280 -- 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 25 U.S.C. 1360, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-22 (repealing Ch. 604, P.L. 81-322, Oct. 5, 1949; 63 Stat. 705, which had granted the state civil and criminal jurisdiction over the Agua Caliente Reservation)

61 Fed. Reg. 1779 (1996) (approving reassumption of exclusive jurisdiction by Washoe Tribe over certain Indian Child Welfare Act matters)

Case Law

Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005)

Lamere v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. Rptr. 3d 880 (Ct. App. 2005)

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Smith, 388 F.3d 691 (9th Cir. 2004)

Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Cmty. of the Bishop Colony, 538 U.S. 701 (U.S. 2003)

Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489 (9th Cir. 2002)

Friends of East Willits Valley v. County of Mendocino, 123 Cal. Rptr.2d 708 (Ct. App. 2002)

Great Western Casinos, Inc. v. Morongo Band of Mission Indians, 88 Cal. Rptr.2d 828 (Ct. App. 1999)

In re Marriage of Purnel, 60 Cal. Rptr.2d 667 (Ct. App. 1997)

Round Valley Indian Hous. Auth. v. Hunter, 907 F. Supp. 1343 (N.D. Cal. 1995)

Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians v. Workers Comp. App. Bd., 71 Cal. Rptr.2d 105 (Ct. App. 1995)

Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache, 38 F.3d 402 (9th Cir. 1994), amended, 54 F.3d 535 (9th Cir. 1995)

People v. Lowry, 34 Cal. Rptr.2d 382 (App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1994)

Quechan Indian Tribe v. McMullen, 984 F.2d 304 (9th Cir. 1993)

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Blue Lake Forest Products, Inc., 143 B.R. 563 (N.D. Cal. 1992), aff’d, 30 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 1994)

Inland Casino Corp. v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 497 (Ct. App. 1992)

County of Inyo v. Jeff, 277 Cal. Rptr. 841 (Ct. App. 1991)

Boisclair v. Superior Court, 801 P.2d 305 (Cal. 1990)

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987)

Segundo v. City of Rancho Mirage, 813 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1987)

All Mission Indian Hous. Auth. v. Silvas, 680 F. Supp. 330 (C.D. Cal. 1987)

Zachary v. Wilk, 219 Cal. Rptr. 122 (Ct. App. 1985)

Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983)

United States v. County of Humboldt, 615 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1980)

In re Humboldt Fir., Inc., 426 F. Supp. 292 (N.D. Cal 1977), aff’d, 625 F.2d 330 (9th Cir. 1980)

Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings County, 532 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1977)

In re Carmen, 48 Cal. 2d 851, 313 P.2d 817 (1957)

Colorado

State Has Jurisdiction Over One Tribe Through Federal Acts Other Than Public Law  280

Through PL 98-290 the Town of Ignacio exercises jurisdiction over the Southern Ute Tribe

Legislation

P.L. 98-290, §§ 1-5, 98 Stat. 201, 202 (May 21, 1984) (authorizing Town of Ignacio to exercise jurisdiction over Southern Ute Tribe)

Case Law

United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666 (10th Cir. 1999)

People v. Morgan, 785 P.2d 1294 (Colo. 1990)

Connecticut

State Has Jurisdiction Through Federal Acts Other Than Public Law  280

Legislation

Mashantucket Pequot Indian Land Claims Settlement Act, P.L. 98-134, Oct. 18, 1983, 97 Stat. 855, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1751 et seq. (conferring state civil and criminal jurisdiction)

Mohegan Nation of Connecticut Land Claims Settlement Act, P. L. 103–377, § 2, Oct. 19, 1994, 108 Stat. 3501, codified at,25 U.S.C. § 1775 et seq. (conferring state civil and criminal jurisdiction)

Case Law

Conroy v. Foxwoods Casino Dealers' Toke Comm., 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 526 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999)

Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. Babbitt, 26 F. Supp. 2d 397 (D. Conn. 1998)

Drumm v. Brown, 716 A.2d 50 (Conn. 1998)

Charles v. Charles, 701 A.2d 650 (Conn. 1997)

State v. Spears, 662 A.2d 80 (Conn. 1995)

Campbell v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Council, 1991 WL 40031 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991)

Schaghticoke Indians of Kent, Conn., Inc. v. Potter, 587 A.2d 139 (Conn. Ct. of App. 1991)

Delaware

Not Applicable.

District of Columbia

Not Applicable.

Florida

Optional Public Law 280 State Jurisdiction

Under FL. Stat. Ann. 285.16, Florida assumes state civil and criminal jurisdiction under PL 280, and authorizes tribes to have their own law enforcement

Legislation

Fl. Stat. Ann. § 285.16 (Laws 1961, c. 61-252, §§ 1, 2, assuming state civil and criminal jurisdiction under Public Law 280, and authorizing tribal councils to employ personnel to exercise law enforcement powers)

25 U.S.C. § 1741 et seq., P.L. 97-399, § 7, Dec. 31, 1982, 96 Stat. 2015 (especially 1746, addressing lease of Miccosukee lands)

Case Law

Seminole Tribe v. McCor, 903 So.2d 353 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Napoleoni, 890 So.2d 1152 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Cupo v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 860 So.2d 1078 (Fla. Dist, Ct. App. 2003)

Lewis v. Edwards, 815 So. 2d 656 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Houghtaling, 589 So.2d 103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991), aff’dsub nom. Houghtaling v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 611 So.2d 1235 (Fla. (1993)

State v. Billie, 497 So.2d 889 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth, 658 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1981)

Georgia

Not Applicable.

Hawaii

Not Applicable.

Idaho

Optional Public Law 280 State Jurisdiction – Partial

Through Idaho Code 67-5101 to 67-5103 Idaho asserts limited jurisdiction over 7 subject areas.

Legislation

Idaho Const. of 1890, art. 21, § 19

Idaho Code §§ 67-5101 to 67-5103 (1963, Ch. 58, § 1, p. 224, asserting jurisdiction over 7 subject areas:  a) compulsory school attendance; b) juvenile delinquency and youth rehabilitation; c) dependent, neglected, and abused children; d) insanities and mental illness; e) public assistance; f) domestic relations; g) operation and management of motor vehicles upon highways and roads maintained by the city or state, or political subdivision thereof; and full jurisdiction with tribe’s consent).

Case Law

State v. Barros, 957 P.2d 1095 (Idaho 1998)

State v. George, 906 P.2d 133 (Idaho 1995)

State v. Snyder, 807 P.2d 55 (Idaho 1991)

State v. Marek, 777 P.2d 1253 (Idaho 1989)

State v. Fanning, 759 P.2d 937 (Idaho App. 1988)

State v. Major, 725 P.2d 115 (Idaho 1986)

Sheppard v. Sheppard, 655 P.2d 895 (Idaho 1982)

State v. Allan, 607 P.2d 426 (Idaho 1980)

Boyer v. Shoshone-Bannock Indian Tribes, 441 P.2d 167 (Idaho 1988)

Illinois

Not Applicable.

Indiana

General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Apply, No State Jurisdiction

Iowa

State Has Jurisdiction Through Federal Acts Other Than Public Law  280

The Act of June 30, 1948, 62 Stat. 1161 confers state criminal jurisdiction over the reservation and Iowa Code Ann. 1.12-1.14 confers civil jurisdiction over the reservation pursuant to PL 280.

Legislation

Act of June 30, 1948, 62 Stat. 1161 (conferring state criminal jurisdiction over reservation)

Iowa Code Ann. §§ 1.12 -1.14 (62 G.A. Ch. 79, § 1, eff. July 1, 1967, accepting civil jurisdiction over reservation pursuant to Public Law 280)

Case Law

Gross v. Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, 601 N.W.2d 82 (Iowa 1999)

Meier v. Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, 476 N.W.2d 61 (Iowa 1991)

State v. Bear, 452 N.W.2d 430 (1990)

State Dep’t of Human Services v. Whitebreast, 409 N.W.2d 460 (Iowa 1987)

Youngbear v. Brewer, 415 F. Supp. 807 (N.D. Iowa 1976), aff’d, 549 F.2d 74 (8th Cir. 1977)

Kansas

State Has Jurisdiction Through Federal Acts Other Than Public Law  280

State jurisdiction over reservations is conferred under 18 U.S.C. § 3243 (ch. 645, 62 Stat. 827, June 25, 1948, recodifying 25 U.S.C. § 217a, 54 Stat. 249, June 8, 1940).

Legislation

18 U.S.C. § 3243 (ch. 645, 62 Stat. 827, June 25, 1948, recodifying 25 U.S.C. § 217a, 54 Stat. 249, June 8, 1940, and conferring state criminal jurisdiction over reservations)

Case Law

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Wagnon, 402 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2005), appeal pending

Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292 (10th Cir. 1994)

Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99 (1993)

State v. Nioce, 716 P.2d 585 (Kan. 1986)

Iowa Tribe of Indians of Kansas and Nebraska v. State of Kansas, 787 F.2d 1434 (10th Cir. 1986)

State v. Mitchell, 642 P.2d 981 (Kan. 1982)

Kentucky

Not Applicable.

Louisiana

General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Apply, No State Jurisdiction

Legislation

No Public Law 280 or similar legislation

Case Law

Tunica-Biloxi Indians of La. v. Pecot, 351 F. Supp.2d 519 (W.D. La. 2004)                     

Owens v. Willock, 690 So.2d 948 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1997)

La. Dep’t of Revenue &Taxation v. Chitimacha Tribe, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16916 (W.D. La. 1987)

Langley v. Ryder, 602 F. Supp. 335 (W.D.La.),aff’d, 778 F.2d 1092 (5th Cir. 1985)

Maine

State Has Jurisdiction Through Federal Acts Other Than Public Law  280.

  • The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act confers state civil and criminal jurisdiction over tribes - 25 U.S.C. § 1721 et seq.
  • Aroostook Band of Micmancs Settlement Act confers state civil and criminal jurisdiction - P.L. 102-171, 105 Stat. 1143, Nov. 26, 1991

Legislation

Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1721 et seq. (state civil and criminal jurisdiction conferred by § 1725(b)(1), (f), and (h); child welfare jurisdiction addressed in  1727(e))

Aroostook Band of Micmancs Settlement Act, P.L. 102-171, 105 Stat. 1143, Nov. 26, 1991 (conferring state civil and criminal jurisdiction)

Case Law

Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 404 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2005)

Penobscot Nation v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 254 F.3d 317 (1st Cir. 2001)

Great Northern Paper, Inc. v. Penobscot Nation, 770 A.2d 574 (Me. 2001)

Penobscot Nation v. Fellencer, 164 F.3d 706 (1st Cir. 1999)

Boudman v. Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians, 54 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D. Me. 1999)

Shannon v. Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, 54 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D. Me. 1999)

Francis v. Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Hous. Auth., 740 A.2d 575 (Me. 1999)

Akins v. Penobscot Nation, 130 F.3d 482, 484-85 (1st Cir. 1997)

Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians v. Maine Human Rights Commission, 960 F. Supp. 449 (D. Me. 1997)

Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Maine, 75 F.3d 784, 787 (1st Cir. 1996)

Penobscot Nation v. Stilphen, 461 A.2d 478 (Me. 1983)

State v. Dana, 404 A.2d 551 (Me. 1979)

Bottomly v. Passamaquoddy Tribe, 599 F.2d 1061, 1064-65 (1st Cir. 1979)

Maryland

Not Applicable.

Massachusetts

State Has Jurisdiction Through Federal Acts Other Than Public Law 280

The Massachusetts Indian Land Claims Settlement Act addresses state civil and criminal jurisdiction.

Legislation

Massachusetts Indian Land Claims Settlement Act, P.L. 100-95, 101 Stat. 704, Aug. 18, 1987, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1771 et seq. (§§ 1771e and 1771g address state civil and criminal jurisdiction)

Case Law

Wiener v. Wampanoag Aquinnah Shellfish Hatchery Corp., 223 F. Supp. 2d 346 (D. Mass. 2002)

Wampanoag Tribe of Gayhead v. Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination, 63 F. Supp.2d 119 (D. Mass 1999)

James v. Wampanoag Tribal Council, 499 N.E.2d 1213 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986)

Michigan

General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Apply,  No State Jurisdiction 

Legislation

No Public Law 280 or similar legislation              

25 U.S.C. § § 1300j-7 (granting Pokagon Band ICWA jurisdiction over service area)

Case Law

Match-e-benash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Engler, 304 F.3 616 (6th Cir. 2002)

Lincoln v. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe,  967  F. Supp. 966 (E.D. Mich. 1997)

United States ex rel. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. Michigan, 106 F.3d 130 (6th Cir. 1996)

Peterson v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1486 (W.D. Mich. 1994)

Wisconsin Potowatomies of Hannahville Indian Community v. Houston, 393 F. Supp. 719 (W.D. Mich. 1973)

People v. Jondreau, 15 Mich.App. 169 (Mich. App. 1968), rev'd, 384 Mich. 539 (1971)

Minnesota

Mandatory Public Law 280 State Jurisdiction

  • Red Lake is excluded - U.S.C. § 1162; 25 U.S.C. 1360, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-22
  • Bois Forte retroceded - 40 Fed. Reg. 4026 (1975)

Legislation

Public Law 280 -- 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 25 U.S.C. 1360, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-22 (excluding Red Lake Reservation from state jurisdiction under the Act)

40 Fed. Reg. 4026 (1975) (accepting retrocession of state jurisdiction over the Bois Forte [Nett Lake] Reservation)

Case Law

State v. Jones, 700 N.W.2d 556 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)

State v. LaRose, 673 N.W.2d 157 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)

State of Minnesota v. Mannypenny, 662 N.W.2d 183 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)

State v. Busse, 644 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. 2002)

Minnesota v. R.M.H., 617 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. 2000)

Lemke v. Brooks, 614 N.W.2d 242 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)

State v. Johnson, 598 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1999)

State v. Couture, 587 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)

Cass County v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 524 U.S. 103 (1998)

United States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 1998)

Minnesota Chippewa Tribal Hous. Auth. v. Reese, 978 F.Supp. 1258 (D. Minn. 1997)

State v. Stone, 572 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. 1997)

State v. Robinson, 572 N.W.2d 720 (1997)

Matsch v. Prairie Island Indian Community, 567 N.W.2d 276 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997)

State v. St. Clair, 560 N.W.2d 732 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997)

Gayle v. Little Six, Inc., 555 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. 1996)

Cohen v. Little Six, Inc., 543 N.W.2d 376 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996)

Becker County Welfare Dep’t v. Bellcourt, 453 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)

Tibbetts v. Leech Lake Reservation Business Committee, 397 N.W.2d 883 (Minn. 1986)

State v. Folstrom, 331 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. 1983)

State v. Keezer, 292 N.W.2d 714 (Minn. 1980)

State v. Clark, 282 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. 1979)

State v. Forge, 262 N.W.2d 341 (Minn. 1977)

Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976)

Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Herist, 334 F. Supp. 1001 (D. Minn. 1971)

State v. Holthusen 133 N.W.2d 180 (Minn. 1962)

State v. Jackson, 16 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 1944)

Mississippi

General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Apply, No State Jurisdiction

Legislation

No Public Law 280 or similar legislation

Case Law

Jones v. Billy, 798 So.2d 1238 (Miss. 2001)

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989)

United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978), on remand, 587 F.2d 683 (5th Cir. 1979)

Tubby v. State, 327 So.2d 272 (Miss. 1976)

Missouri

General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Apply, No State Jurisdiction

Montana

Optional  Public Law 280 State Jurisdiction – Partial and over only one tribe

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation  are subject to partial state criminal jurisdiction.  See 60 Fed. Reg. 33,318 (1995).

Elsewhere, General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction apply.

Legislation

Mont. Const., Ord 1

Mont. Code Ann. §§ 2-1-302 to 2-1-307 (as of 1963, assuming criminal jurisdiction over Salish/Kootenai Reservation and over any other tribe with consent, though none consented)

60 Fed. Reg. 33,318 (1995) (partially retroceding jurisdiction over Salish/Kootenai Reservation)

Case Law

Balyeat Law, PC v. Pettit, 967 P.2d 398 (Mont. 1998)

State v. Spotted Blanket, 955 P.2d 1347 (Mont. 1998)

In re Marriage of Wellman, 852 P.2d 559 (Mont. 1993)

American States Ins. Co. v. McDougall, 18 Indian L. Rep. 3075 (U.S.D. Mont. 1991)

First v. State Dept. of Social and Rehabilitation Services ex rel.  LaRoche, 808 P.2d 467  (Mont. 1991)

State v. LaPier, 790 P.2d 983 (Mont. 1990)

Liberty v. Jones, 782 P.2d 369 (Mont. 1989)

State v. Thomas, 760 P.2d 96 (Mont. 1988)

State ex rel.  Greely v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 712 P.2d 754 (Mont. 1985)

In re Marriage of Limpy, 636 P.2d 266 (Mont. 1981)           

Larrivee v. Morigeau, 602 P.2d 563 (Mont. 1979)

Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist., 424 U.S. 382 (1976)

Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, 517 P.2d 893 (Mont. 1974)

United States v. Pollmann, 364 F. Supp. 995 (D. Mont. 1973)

State ex rel.  Irvine v. District Court of 4th Judicial Dist., 239 P.2d 272 (Mont. 1951)

Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240 (1896)

Nebraska

Mandatory Public Law 280 State Jurisdiction.

  • Omaha Tribe retroceded - 35 Fed. Reg. 16,598 (1970)
  • Winnebago Tribe retroceded - 51 Fed. Reg. 24,234 (1986)
  • Santee Sioux retroceded - 71 Red. Reg. 7,997 (2006)

Legislation

Public Law 280 -- 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 25 U.S.C. 1360, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-22

Act of Oct. 31, 1990, P.L. 101-484, § 2, 104 Stat. 1167, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 983 et seq. (re-recognizing Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, which had been terminated in 1962 pursuant to 25 U.S.C. §§ 971-980)

51 Fed. Reg. 24,234 (1986) (retroceding jurisdiction over Winnebago Tribe)

35 Fed. Reg. 16,598 (1970) (retroceding jurisdiction over Omaha Tribe)

71 Red. Reg. 7,997 (2006) (retroceding jurisdiction over the Santee Sioux Nation)

Case Law

Freemont v. United States, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2145 (D. Neb. 2002)

United States v. Merrick, 767 F. Supp. 1022 (D. Neb. 1991)

Walker v. Rushing, 898 F.2d 672 (8th Cir. 1990)

Tyndall v. Gunter, 681 F. Supp. 641 (D. Neb. 1987), aff’d, 840 F.2d 716 (8th Cir. 1988)

Op. Att’y Gen. Neb. No. 48 (1985)

Omaha Tribe of Nebraska v. Village of Walthill, 334 F. Supp. 823 (D. Neb. 1971), aff’d, 460 F.2d 1327 (8th Cir. 1972)

Robinson v. Sigler, 187 N.W.2d 756 (Neb. 1971), on habeas review, Robinson v. Wolff, 349 F. Supp. 514 (D. Neb. 1972)

Nevada

General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Apply, No State Jurisdiction

Nevada assumed optional jurisdiction under Public Law 280 in 1967, amending the provision a few years later to require tribal consent.  Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.430. See also Chapter 601, Statutes of Nevada (1973). A 1973 amendment provided for retrocession except for those tribes already subject to the Act which consented to continued state jurisdiction.  No tribes requested continuation of state jurisdiction. In 1975, retrocession was accepted for 15 tribes that had been subjected to state jurisdiction under Public Law 280. 40 Fed. Reg. 27,501 (1975).  In 1988, retrocession was offered and accepted for the Ely Colony. 53 F. Reg. 5837 (1988). At present, Nevada does not exercise any jurisdiction under Public Law 280.

Legislation

No current Public Law 280 or similar legislation

Case Law

Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001)

Washoe Tribe of Nev. & Cal. v. Southwest Gas Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7087  (D. Nev. 2000)

Snooks v. District Court, 112 Nev. 798, 919 P.2d 1064 (1996)

Amarok Corp. v. Nevada, Dep't of Taxation, 935 F.2d 1068 (9th Cir. 1991)

Adams v. Adams, 107 Nev. 790, 820 P.2d 752 (1991)

Patterson v. Four Rent, Inc., 101 Nev. 651, 707 P.2d 1147 (1985)

Jones v. State, 94 Nev. 679, 585 P.2d 1340 (1978)

State v. Jones, 92 Nev. 116, 546 P.2d 235 (1976)

New Hampshire

Not Applicable.

New Jersey

Not Applicable.

New Mexico

General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Apply, No State Jurisdiction

Legislation

N.M. Const., art. XXI, § 2                                           

No Public Law 280 or similar legislation

Case Law

State v. Romero, 135 N.M. 53 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003, appeal pending)

Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Board of County Comm’rs, 118 N.M. 550 (1994)

Wacondo v. Concha, 873 P.2d 276 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994)

State v. Pena, 117 N.M. 528, 873 P.2d 274 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994)

State v. Ortiz, 105 N.M. 308, 731 P.2d 1352 (1986)

Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237 (1985)

Blatchford v. Gonzales, 100 N.M. 333, 670 P.2d 944 (1983)

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982)                                                     

Joe v. Marcum, 621 F.2d 358 (10th Cir. 1980)

Chino v. Chino, 90 N.M. 203 (1977)

State Sec., Inc. v. Anderson, 84 N.M. 629 (1973)                                        

Sangre de Cristo Development Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 84 N.M. 343 (1972)

Paiz v. Hughes, 76 N.M. 562 (1966)

Batchelor v. Charley, 74 N.M. 717 (1965)

State v. Warner, 71 N.M. 418 (1963)

New York

State Has Jurisdiction Through Federal Acts Other Than Public Law 280

State criminal jurisdiction and state civil jurisdiction has been conferred over all reservations in New York - 25 U.S.C. § 232 (ch. 809, 62 Stat. 1224, Apr. 2, 1948) and 25 U.S.C. § 233 (ch. 947, 64 Stat. 845, Sept. 13, 1950)

Legislation

25 U.S.C. § 232 (ch. 809, 62 Stat. 1224, Apr. 2, 1948, conferring state criminal jurisdiction over all reservations in the state)

25 U.S.C. § 233 (ch. 947, 64 Stat. 845, Sept. 13, 1950, conferring state civil jurisdiction over all reservations in the state)

Case Law

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 125 S. Ct. 1478 (2005)

Clinton v. Hill, 772 N.Y.S.2d 634 (App. Div. 2004)

Bowen v. Doyle, 880 F. Supp. 99 (W.D.N.Y. 1995), aff’d, 230 F.2d 525 (2d Cir. 2000)

Dep’t of Taxation & Finance of N.Y. v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc., 512 U.S. 61 (1994)

United States v. Markiewicz, 978 F.2d 786 (2d Cir. 1992)

United States v. Cook, 922 F.2d 1926 (2d Cir. 1991)

United States v. Burns, 725 F. Supp. 116 (N.D.N.Y. 1989)

People v. Boots, 434 N.Y.S.2d 850 (N.Y. Co. Ct. 1980)

People v. Edwards, 432 N.Y.S.2d 567 (A.Div. 1980)

People v. Cook, 365 N.Y.S.2d 611 (Onondaga County Ct. 1975)

People v. Redeye, 358 N.Y.S.2d 632 (1974)

Bennet v. Fink Construction Co., 262 N.Y.S.2d 331 (Sup. Ct. 1965)

People ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496 (1946)

North Carolina

General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Apply, No State Jurisdiction

Legislation

N.C. Const. art. IV, § 2

No Public Law 280 or similar legislation

Case Law

Hatcher v. Harrah's NC Casino Co., LLC, 610 S.E.2d 210 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)

Jackson County v. Swayney, 352 S.E.2d 413 (N.C. 1987)

Wildcatt v. Smith, 316 S.E.2d 870 (N.C. App. 1984)

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians v. Lynch, 632 F. 2d 373, 377-78 (4th Cir. 1980)

Sasser v. Beck, 253 S.E.2d 577 (N.C. App. 1979)

North Dakota

State Has Jurisdiction Over One tribe Through Federal Acts Other Than Public Law 280

The Act of May 31, 1946, 60 Stat. 229 conferred state criminal jurisdiction over Devil’s Lake, now Spirit Lake, reservation.

Elsewhere, General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction apply.

North Dakota attempted to accept civil jurisdiction under Public Law 280, subject to tribal or individual consent.  N.D. Cent. Code §§ 27-19-01 to 27-10-13.  Both the condition of individual acceptance and the condition of tribal acceptance have been declared invalid under federal law.  Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng’g, 476 U.S. 877 (1986) (tribal acceptance); Nelson v. Dubois, 232 N.W.2d 54 (N.D. 1975) (tribal acceptance).

Legislation

Act of May 31, 1946, 60 Stat. 229 (conferring state criminal jurisdiction over Devil’s

Lake, now Spirit Lake, reservation)

Case Law

Winer v. Penny Enters., 674 N.W.2d 9 (N.D. 2004)

Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1994)

State v. Gohl, 477 N.W.2d 205 (N.D. 1991)

State v. Hook, 476 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 1991) (overruling State v. Lohnes, 69 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 1955))

Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng’g, 476 U.S. 877 (1986)

Nelson v. Dubois, 232 N.W.2d 54 (N.D. 1975)

Schantz v. White Lightning, 231 N.W.2d 812 (N.D. 1975)

Gourneau v. Smith, 207 N.W.2d 256 (N.D. 1973) (overruling Vermillion v. Spotted Elk, 85 N.W.2d 432 (N.D. 1957))

Fournier v. Roed, 161 N.W.2d 458 (N.D. 1968)

In re Whiteshield, 24 N.W.2d 694 (N.D. 1963)

State ex rel. Baker v. Mountrail County, 149 N.W. 120 (N.D. 1914)

Ohio

Not Applicable.

Oklahoma

General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Apply, No State Jurisdiction

Legislation

Okla. Const., art. 3, § 1

No Public Law 280 or similar legislation

See25 U.S.C. § 476 (Allotment Act provision for state jurisdiction; note that it does not apply to the former Indian territory)

Case Law

C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 532 U.S. 411 (2001)

United States v. Roberts, 185 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 1999)

Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998)

Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Chickasaw Nation, 515 U.S. 450 (1995)

Buzzard v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 992 F.2d 1073 (10th Cir. 1993)

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505 (1991)

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. State of Okla. ex rel. Moss, 927 F.2d  1170 (10th Cir. 1991)

Richardson v. Malone, 762 F. Supp. 1463 (N.D. Okla. 1991)

Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1990)

Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma v. State of Oklahoma ex rel.Thompson, 874 F.2d 790 (10th Cir. 19889)

State v. Klindt, 782 P.2d 401 (Okl. Cr. 1989)

State ex rel. May v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, 711 P.2d 77 (Okl. 1985)

Ahboah v. Hous. Auth. of the Kiowa Tribe, 660 P.2d 625 (Okl. 1983)

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v. State of Oklahoma, 618 F.2d 665 (10th Cir. 1980), appeal after remand, 681 F.2d 705 (10th Cir. 1982)

Goforth v. State, 644 P.2d 114 (Okl. Cr. 1978)

State v. Littlechief, 573 P.2d 263 (Okl. Cr. 1978)

Oregon

Mandatory Public Law 280 State Jurisdiction

Exceptions:

  • Warms Springs excluded from state jurisdiction - 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 25 U.S.C. 1360, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-22
  • Umatilla Reservation Retroceded - 46 Fed. Reg. 2195 (1981
  • Burns Paiute Reservation Retroceded - 44 FR 26,129 (1979)

Legislation

Public Law 280 -- 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 25 U.S.C. 1360, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-22 (excluding Warm Springs Reservation from state jurisdiction under the Act)

25 U.S.C. § 715d, P.L. 101-42, June 28, 1989, 103 Stat. 91 (restoring Coquille Tribe and authorizing state to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction)

25 U.S.C. § 556e, P.L. 99-398, Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 850 (restoring Klamath Indian Tribe and authorizing state to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction)

25 U.S.C. § 714e, P.L. 98-481, Oct. 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 2250 (restoring Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians and authorizing the state to assume civil and criminal jurisdiction)

25 U.S. 713f (c)(6), P. L. 98-165, Nov. 22, 1983, 97 Stat. 1064 (restoring Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community and authorizing state to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction).  See also P.L. 100-425, Sept. 9, 1988, 102 Stat.1594, as amended, P.L. 100-581, Title II, § 202, Nov. 1, 1988, 102 Stat. 2939.

P.L. 97-391, § 2, Dec. 29, 1982, 96 Stat. 11960, as amended, P.L. 100-139, § 5(b), Oct. 26, 2987, 101 Stat. 827, as further amended, P.L. 100-446, Title 1, Sept. 27, 1988 102 Stat. 1794 (recognizing Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians)

46 Fed. Reg. 2195 (1981) (retroceding jurisdiction over Umatilla Reservation)

44 FR 26,129 (1979) (retroceding jurisdiction over Burns Paiute Reservation)

25 U.S.C. § 711(d)(6),  P.L. 95-195, Nov. 18, 1977, 91 Stat. 1415 (Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation and authorizing state to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction)

Case Law

Foreman v. Dep't of Revenue, 2005 Ore. Tax LEXIS 111 (Or. T.C. 2005)

State v. Jim, 178 Ore. App. 553 (Or. Ct. App. 2002)

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians v. Employment Dep't, 995 P.2d 580 (Or. Ct.

App. 2000)

Spang v. Dep't of Revenue, 16 OTR-MD 166 (Or. T.C. 1999)

Chance v. Coquille Indian Tribe, 327 Ore. 318, 963 P.2d 638 (Or. 1998)

United States v. Strong, 778 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1985)

Anderson v. Gladden, 293 F.2d 463 (9th Cir. 1961)

Anderson v. Britton, 212 Or. 1, 318 P.2d 291 (1957)

Pennsylvania

Not Applicable.

Rhode Island

State Has Jurisdiction Through Federal Acts Other Than Public Law 280

The Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act confers state civil and criminal jurisdiction -  P.L. 95-395, § 2, 92 Stat. 813, Sept. 30, 1978, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.

Case Law

Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Rhode Island, 407 F.3d 450, 463-66 (1st Cir. 2005), rehearing en banc granted, 415 F.3d 134 (1st Cir. 2005)

Thomas v. Banfield, 2002 R.I. Super. LEXIS 87 (R.I. Super. Ct. 2002)

Ninigret Dev. Corp. v. Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Hous. Auth., 207 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2000)

Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Narragansett Elec. Co., 89 F.3d 908 (1st Cir. 1996)

State v. Brown, 1996 R.I. Super. LEXIS 121 (R.I. Super. Ct. 1996)

Maynard v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 984 F.2d 14 (1st Cir. 1993)

South Carolina

State Has Jurisdiction Through Federal Acts Other Than Public Law 280

SC Code 27-16-10 to 27-16-140 establishes terms of jurisdiction on Catawba reservation.

Legislation

Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claim Settlement Act, Pub. L. 103–116, § 4(c), Oct. 27, 1993, 107 Stat. 1121, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 941-941m (repealing termination act, 25 U.S.C. § 931 et seq.)

S.C. Code §§ 27–16–10 to 27–16–140 (§ 27-16-40 establishing terms of jurisdiction on Catawba reservation)

Case Law

Wade v. Blue, 369 F.3d 407 (4th Cir. 2004)

Catawba Indian Tribe v. City of North Myrtle Beach, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 13987 (4th Cir. 2000) (unpublished)

State v. Keesee, 336 S.C. 599, 521 S.E.2d 743 (1999)

South Dakota

General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Apply,  No State Jurisdiction

In 1961, South Dakota attempted to assert jurisdiction under Public Law 280 with respect to criminal offenses and civil cause of actions arising on highways.  S.D. Codified Laws §§ 1-1-12 to 1-1-21.  The Eighth Circuit declared this legislation invalid in 1990.  Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota, 900 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1990).

Legislation

S.D. Const., art. XXII, § 2

No Public Law 280 or similar legislation

Case Law

State v. Cummings, 679 N.W.2d 484 (S.D. 2004)

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. Janklow, 103 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (D.S.D. 2000)

Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Gaffey, 188 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 1999)

United States v. Phelps, 168 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 1999)

South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (1998)

State v. Spotted Horse, 462 N.W.2d 463 (S.D. 1990)

South Dakota v. Larson, 455 N.W.2d 600 (S.D. 1990)

Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota, 900 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1990)

United States v. High Elk, 715 F. Supp. 285 (D.S.D. 1989)

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 718 F. Supp. 755 (D.S.D. 1989), order rev’d, 897 F.2d 385 (8th Cir. 1990)

Solem v. Bartlett, 464 U.S. 463 (1984)

Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584 (1977)

DeCoteau v. District Court for Tenth Judicial Dist., 420 U.S. 425 (1975)

State v. Molash, 86 S.D. 558, 199 N.W.2d 591 (1972)

Smith v. Temple, 82 S.D. 650, 152 N.W.2d 547 (1967)

Tennessee

Not Applicable.

Texas

State Has Jurisdiction Through Federal Acts Other Than Public Law 280

  • The Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas Restoration Act confers state civil and criminal jurisdiction over reservation - P.L. 100-89, 101 Stat. 670, Aug. 18, 1987, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 731 et seq.
  • The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Restoration Act confers state civil and criminal jurisdiction over reservation - P. L. 100–89, title I, § 101, 101 Stat. 666, Aug. 18, 1987, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300g et seq.

Legislation

Texas Band of Kickapoo Act, Pub. L. 97–429, § 2, 96 Stat. 2269, Jan. 8, 1983, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300b-11 (no mention of state jurisdiction)

Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas Restoration Act, P.L. 100-89, 101 Stat. 670, Aug. 18, 1987, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 731 et seq. (§ 736f confers state civil and criminal jurisdiction over reservation)

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Restoration Act, P. L. 100–89, title I, § 101, 101 Stat. 666, Aug. 18, 1987, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300g et seq. (§ 1300g-3 confers state civil and criminal jurisdiction over reservation

Case Law

Garza v. Traditional Kickapoo Tribe, 79 Fed. Appx. 10 (5th Cir. 2003) (unpublished decision)

Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas v. Texas, 208 F. Supp.2d 670 (E.D. Tex. 2002), summarily aff'd, 66 Fed. Appx. 525 (5th Cir. 2003)

Bank One, N.A. v. Shumake, 281 F.3d 507, 511 (5th Cir. 2002)

Texas v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, 220 F. Supp. 2d 668 (D. Tex. 2002)

Comstock Oil & Gas v. Ala. & Coushatta Indian Tribes, 261 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2001)

Morgan v. Coushatta Tribe of Indians of La., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25291 (D. Tex. 2001)

Silva v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, 28 S.W.3d 122 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000)

TTEA v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, 181 F.3d 676 (5th Cir. 1999)

Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 79 F. Supp.2d 708 (W.D. Tex. 1999), summarily aff'd, 37 F.3d 631 (5th Cir. 2000)

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe v. Chacon, 46 F. Supp. 2d 644 (D. Tex. 1999)

Holguin v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, 954 S.W.2d 843 (Tex. App. 1997)

Yavapai-Apache Tribe v. Mejia, 906 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. App. 1995)

Utah

State Has Jurisdiction Over One Tribe Through Federal Acts Other Than Public Law 280

The Paiute Restoration Act confers state civil and criminal jurisdiction over the reservation - , P. L. 96–227, § 7, 94 Stat. 320, Apr. 3, 1980, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 761 et seq.

In 1971, Utah asserted jurisdiction under Public Law 280, subject to tribal consent. Utah Code §§ 63-36-9 to 63-36-21, ch. 169, § 1 (1971).  No tribe has consented to jurisdiction under the terms of this law.

Legislation

Paiute Restoration Act, P. L. 96–227, § 7, 94 Stat. 320, Apr. 3, 1980, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 761 et seq. (§ 766 confers state civil and criminal jurisdiction over reservation)

Ute Termination Act, ch. 1009, § 1, 68 Stat. 868, Aug. 27, 1954, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 677 et seq. (terminating federal supervision of property belonging to mixed blood members of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation)

Case Law

Gardner v. Ute Tribal Court Chief Judge, 36 Fed. Appx. 927 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished opinion)

Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994)

Gardner v. United States, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10090 (10th Cir. 1994) (limited citation)

Lyda v. Tah-Bone, 962 F. Supp. 1434 (D. Utah 1997)

State ex rel. D.A.C., 933 P.2d 993 (Utah Ct. App. 1997)

Maryboy v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 904 P.2d 662 (Utah 1995)

State v. Gardner, 827 P.2d 980 (Utah Ct. App. 1992)

Brough v. Appawora, 553 P.2d 934 (Utah 1976)

State v. Roedl, 155 P.2d 741 (Utah 1945)

Vermont

Not Applicable.

Virginia

Not Applicable.

Washington

Optional Public Law 280 State Jurisdiction – Partial and Full

  • Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation partially retroceded - 54 Fed. Reg. 19, 959 (1989)
  • Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation partially retrocededand re-assumption of ICWA exclusive jurisdiction - 52 Fed. Reg. 8,372 (1987) and 45 Fed. Reg. 56,450 (1980)
  • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe re-assumption of ICWA exclusive jurisdiction - 45 Fed. Reg. 49,363 (1980)
  • Quileute Tribe partially retroceded- 54 Fed. Reg. 19, 959 (1989)
  • Quinault Tribe partially retroceded - 34 Fed. Reg. 14,288 (1969)
  • Spokane Tribe re-assumption of ICWA exclusive jurisdiction - 45 Fed Reg. 47, 926 (1980)
  • Suquamish Indian Tribe partially retroceded - 37 Fed. Reg. 7,353 (1972)
  • Swinomish Indians partially retroceded - 54 Fed. Reg. 19, 959 (1989)
  • Tulalip Tribes partially retroceded - 65 Fed. Reg. 75,948 (2000)
  • Yakima Nation re-assumption of ICWA exclusive jurisdiction  - 45 Fed. Reg. (1980)

Legislation

Wash. Const. art. XXVI, § 2

Wash. Rev. Code §§ 37.12.010 to 37.12.070 (Wash. Laws 1957, ch. 240 § 1, amended, Wash. Laws 1963 ch. 36 § 1 & Supp. 1971) (accepting Public Law 280 jurisdiction over 8 subject areas, over non-trust lands, and over non-Indians without regard to tribal consent, and full jurisdiction over all of Indian country with tribal consent; ten tribes consented to jurisdiction, but six of those later retroceded; in addition, one other tribe has retroceded)

65 Fed. Reg. 75,948 (2000) (retroceding partial jurisdiction over Tulalip Reservation)

54 Fed. Reg. 19, 959 (1989) (retroceding partial jurisdiction over the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Quileute Reservation, and the Swinomish Indian Community)

52 Fed. Reg. 8,372 (1987) (retroceding partial jurisdiction over Colville Reservation)

45 Fed. Reg. 56,450 (1980) (accepting re-assumption of exclusive jurisdiction by Colville Tribe over certain Indian child welfare matters)

45 Fed. Reg. 49,363 (1980) (accepting re-assumption of exclusive jurisdiction by Muckleshoot Tribe over certain Indian child welfare matters)

45 Fed Reg. 47, 926 (1980) (accepting re-assumption of exclusive jurisdiction by Spokane Tribe over certain Indian child welfare matters)

45 Fed. Reg. (1980) (accepting re-assumption of exclusive jurisdiction by Yakima Nation over certain Indian child welfare matters)

37 Fed. Reg. 7,353 (1972) (retroceding partial jurisdiction over Suquamish/Port Madison Reservation)

34 Fed. Reg. 14,288 (1969) (retroceding partial jurisdiction over Quinault Reservation)

Case Law

State v. Moses, 37 P.3d 1216 (Wash. 2002)

Cordova v. Holwegner, 971 P.2d 531 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)

Landauer v. Landauer, 975 P.2d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)

State v. Squally, 937 P.2d 1069 (Wash. 1997)

State v. Cooper, 928 P.2d 406 (Wash. 1996)

Estate of Millie Cross v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 891 P.2d 26 (Wash. 1995)

County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (1992)

McCrea v. Denison, 885 P.2d 856 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994)

State v. Schmuck, 850 P.2d 1332 (Wash. 1993)

Craig v. James, 19 Indian L. Rep. 3111 (USDC, E.D. Wash. 1992)

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. Washington, 938 F.3d 146 (9th Cir. 1991)

State v. Hoffman, 804 P.2d 577 (Mont. 1991)

Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408 (1989)

United States v. Farris, 624 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1980)

Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation v. Washington, 439 U.S. 463 (1979)

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. Beck, 6 Indian L. Rep. F8 (USDC E.D. Wash. 1979)

United States v. Marcyes, 557 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir. 1977)

Tonasket v. State, 488 P.2d 281 (1971)

Makah Indian Tribe v. State of Washington, 457 P.2d 590 (Wash. 1969)

Quinault Tribe v. Gallagher, 368 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1966)

State v. McCoy, 387 P.2d 942 (Wash. 1963)

Arquette v. Schneckloth, 346 P.2d 658 (Mont. 1960)

Wesley v. Schneckloth, 346 P.2d 658 (Wash. 1959)

State v. Paul, 337 P.2d 33 (Mont. 1959)

West Virginia

Not Applicable.

Wisconsin

Mandatory Public Law 280 State Jurisdiction

  • Menominee retroceded - 41 Fed. Reg. 8516 (1976)
  • Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians reassumed exclusive ICWA jurisdiction - 46 Fed. Reg. 15579 (1981)

Legislation

Public Law 280 -- 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 25 U.S.C. 1360, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-22

46 Fed. Reg. 15579 (1981) (approving reassumption of exclusive jurisdiction by Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe over certain child welfare matters)

41 Fed. Reg. 8516 (1976) (retroceding jurisdiction over Menominee Reservation)

Case Law

Teague v. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 665 N.W.2d 899 (Wis. 2003)

In re Commitment of Burgess, 665 N.W.2d 124 (Wis. 2003)

State v. Cutler, 527 N.W.2d 400 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994)

St. Germaine v. Chapman, 505 N.W.2d 450 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994)

St. Germaine v. Circuit Court for Vilas County, 938 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1991)

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin, 770 F. Supp. 480 (W.D. Wis. 1991), appeal dismissed, 957 F.2d 515 (7th Cir. 1992)

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin, 743 F. Supp. 645 (W.D. Wis. 1990)

Jacobs v. Jacobs, 405 N.W.2d 668 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987)

County of Vilas v. Chapman, 361 N.W.2d 699 (Wis. 1985)

State v. Webster, 338 N.W.2d 474 (Wis. 1983)

State v. Lemieux, 317 N.W.2d 166 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982), aff’d, 327 N.W. 2d 669 (Wis. 1983)

70 Op. Wis. Att’y Gen. 237 (1981)

Wyoming

General Rules of Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Apply, No State Jurisdiction

Legislation

Wyom. Const., Art 21, § 26

No Public Law 280 or similar legislation

Case Law

In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, 753 P.2d 76 (1988), aff’d by equally divided vote sub nom. Wyoming v. United States, 492 U.S. 406 (1989)

Vialpando v. State, 640 P.2d 77 (Wyo. 1982)

State ex rel. Peterson v. District Court of Ninth Judicial Dist., 617 P.2d 1056 (Wyo. 1980)

Blackburn v. State, 357 P.2d 174 (Wyo. 1960)