Sam mcfatridge UMD 10.18.15
Even though the Indian tribes are sovereign nations, their jurisdictional rights are constantly under dispute. The nations are in charge of keeping order within their own territories and resolving disputes between their citizens. Doctrine of Discovery was used to justify the U.S. government's assumption of the legal title to lands occupied by Indians. Many cases affect the way the federal government listed tribes jurisdiction. The case Worcester v. Georgia determined that states' abilities to regulate tribes were limited unless overpowered by Congress in specific areas. This also means that Congress had complete power of Native nations. Outside the Indian land areas, tribal courts have no jurisdiction over tribal …show more content…
Something interesting that I found was that on the Indian lands, if an Indian person commits crime, they have jurisdiction whether it was against a non-native person or not. State civil laws and regulation can apply on Indian land in some cases. The jurisdiction is delegated by the federal legislation or prior federal court decisions. I find it interesting that most state civil regulation does not apply within the Indian Country. This also means that a state can not regulate the tribal gaming enterprise. This was shown in the case of California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indian of 1987. This helped to pave the way for tribes to make decisions rather than states. Something interesting to think about is the difficulties in jurisdiction when it comes to questions that relate to government- federal, state, tribal- can regulate activities of nonmembers on reservations lands. I feel that they show, because they choose to enter a reservation and should have to follow their guidelines, just like member who leave the reservation. Something that I did not know was that many non-Indians live, work, and own property within the Indian Country boundaries. This gives the chance to get outside opinion in further developing the communities and economy. Taxation
Even though the Indian tribes are sovereign nations, their jurisdictional rights are constantly under dispute. The nations are in charge of keeping order within their own territories and resolving disputes between their citizens. Doctrine of Discovery was used to justify the U.S. government's assumption of the legal title to lands occupied by Indians. Many cases affect the way the federal government listed tribes jurisdiction. The case Worcester v. Georgia determined that states' abilities to regulate tribes were limited unless overpowered by Congress in specific areas. This also means that Congress had complete power of Native nations. Outside the Indian land areas, tribal courts have no jurisdiction over tribal …show more content…
Something interesting that I found was that on the Indian lands, if an Indian person commits crime, they have jurisdiction whether it was against a non-native person or not. State civil laws and regulation can apply on Indian land in some cases. The jurisdiction is delegated by the federal legislation or prior federal court decisions. I find it interesting that most state civil regulation does not apply within the Indian Country. This also means that a state can not regulate the tribal gaming enterprise. This was shown in the case of California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indian of 1987. This helped to pave the way for tribes to make decisions rather than states. Something interesting to think about is the difficulties in jurisdiction when it comes to questions that relate to government- federal, state, tribal- can regulate activities of nonmembers on reservations lands. I feel that they show, because they choose to enter a reservation and should have to follow their guidelines, just like member who leave the reservation. Something that I did not know was that many non-Indians live, work, and own property within the Indian Country boundaries. This gives the chance to get outside opinion in further developing the communities and economy. Taxation