Self-Determination and American Indian Justice: Tribal Versus Federal Jurisdiction on Indian Lands (From Native Americans, Crime, and Justice, P 38-45, 1996, Marianne O Nielsen and Robert A Silverman, eds. -- See NCJ-168132)

• NCJ Number: 168136
• Author(s): Z K Snyder-Joy
• Date Published: 1996
• Length: 8 pages
• Sale Source: Westview Press, Inc
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Description
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

This chapter reviews some of the statutes and case law that the Federal Government has used to alter American Indian legal systems and structure American Indian law in the United States; it also proposes future research considerations as a means of achieving a more equitable American Indian justice.

Abstract

During the first third of the 19th century, a series of Supreme Court decisions were made regarding Federal/Indian relations. These cases have had a profound impact on Indian legal systems and continue to influence decisions regarding tribal sovereignty and self-determination. In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the Supreme Court decided that State laws were not enforceable in Indian country. This decision did not set a precedent for the Federal Indian policies that followed, however. The expansion of white settlers into the territories west of the Mississippi River resulted in renewed efforts to dislocate American Indian claims to their lands. An incident in 1881 was used by the Federal Government to establish greater Federal control over American Indian legal systems. Although an Indian who killed another Indian was judged and sentenced in a tribal court, he was arrested by Federal authorities and sentenced to hang. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held that the tribal court decision was not subject to outside interference. This decision, however, led to the enactment of the Major Crimes Act of 1885, which provided Federal jurisdiction over seven crimes committed by Indians in Indian country. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 amended Public Law 280 such that Indians must vote to approve the extension of State civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian land. In Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) the Supreme Court held that the tribe, due to its domestic, dependent status, does not have jurisdiction over non-Indians unless such power is granted by Congress. In Duro v. Reina (1990) the Supreme Court determined that the Salt River tribal community did not have jurisdiction over nonmember Indians. Overall, a review of the law and the court cases shows that the Federal Government has greatly restricted the authority of American Indians to formally address crime in their on-reservation communities. 3 notes