NCJ Number
187434
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 90 Issue: 4 Dated: Summer 2000 Pages: 1317-1351
Date Published
2000
Length
35 pages
Annotation
The author believes that Congress should amend the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to direct money generated by Indian gaming toward tribal justice development and amend Public Law 280 to return criminal jurisdiction to tribes.
Abstract
The U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 280 in 1953. The law mandated that five States assume jurisdiction for all criminal offenses committed on Indian land in those States. Public Law 280 has harmed tribes in many ways in the nearly half-century since its passage. One of its most significant effects has been higher crime rates for tribes in Public Law 280 States than for tribes in non-Public Law 280 States. Gaming under the sponsorship of Indian tribes on Indian lands has brought economic opportunities to tribes on a scale never before seen in Indian country. As the amount of money flowing onto tribal lands through gaming increased, however, so to did governmental interest in Indian gaming. The IGRA comprehensively regulated the creation and operation of Indian gaming facilities. The general Federal regulation of Indian gaming did not necessarily pose any problems for gaming tribes; however, the particular provision of the IGRA that required tribes to work with States in order to open a gaming facility did create large-scale impediments for gaming-desirous tribes. Part I of this paper details the congressional motivation behind Public Law 280, the law's design, and its effects. Part II examines the structure of tribal courts, their role in tribal sovereignty, and their relationship to tribal cultures. Part III describes Indian gaming in general, the IGRA, and the IGRA's destruction by Federal courts. Finally, Part IV discusses a plan to combat the raging crime rate on reservations in Public Law 280 States. This plan centers around congressional amendments to both Public Law 280 and the IGRA, the combination of which would produce a return of criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed on Indian lands to the tribes and provide a source of funding for tribal justice systems that is independent of any non-tribal government. 247 footnotes