Indian Tribal Sovereignty

By Bulzomi, Michael J. | The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, June 2001 | Go to article overview

Indian Tribal Sovereignty


Bulzomi, Michael J., The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin


Criminal Jurisdiction and Procedure

The relationship between Indian tribes and the U.S. government has changed dramatically over the last 200 years. During the British colonial period, Indian tribes were considered foreign nations by the British crown and were dealt with by treaty. This relationship worked so well that the majority of the tribes allied with the British during the Revolutionary War. The relationship between the tribes and the American colonists was never as strong. At first, the colonists treated the tribes as they were treated by the British, as independent sovereigns, but their sovereignty was diluted over time, and they were treated as dependant sovereigns, retaining limited control of their internal affairs. This changing and uneasy relationship set the stage for many battles, both in the field and in the courts, regarding the status of Indian tribes in modem America.

This article briefly examines the judicial history of tribal sovereignty in American courts. It then reviews the major federal legislation impacting criminal jurisdiction on tribal land and discusses the impact of the federal Constitution on the tribes.

THE QUESTION OF SOVEREIGNTY

In the 1830s, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases collectively known as the Cherokee cases: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia [1] and Worcester v. Georgia. [2] In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Cherokee tribe sued to overturn certain laws of the state of Georgia that it felt interfered with its internal affairs. In order to bring the suit, the tribe had to qualify as a "foreign nation" under the U.S. Constitution. [3] The Court decided the tribe was not a foreign nation and dismissed the suit. However, the Court did characterize the tribe as a "domestic dependent nation." 4 The following year, the Court decided the case of Worcester v. Georgia. In this case, Georgia had passed a law requiring a state permit for any non-Indian to live on the Cherokee reservation. Worcester, a missionary, broke the law and was arrested. The Supreme Court decided that the laws of the state of Georgia had no force on the Cherokee reservation. The Court said that Indian reservations are "distinct political communities, having terr itorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive...." 5

The Cherokee cases clearly established that the tribes were separate political entities with authority over their internal affairs and beyond the reach of the authority of the individual states. However, their relationship with the federal government was much different. As noted previously, in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Supreme Court characterized the tribes as dependent nations, meaning dependent upon the authority of the federal government. The Court described the relationship as that of a "ward to his guardian." 6 The Court interpreted this trust relationship to mean that the federal government, specifically Congress, could exercise extensive authority over the tribes. 7 In 1903, the Court recognized that Congress has plenary power over Indian affairs "by reason of its exercise of guardianship over their interests." 8 Over the years, Congress has used that plenary power to apportion criminal jurisdiction on Indian lands among federal, state, and Indian governments.

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

The Federal Enclaves Act

In 1817, Congress passed The Federal Enclaves Act, 9 asserting federal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians for crimes they commit in Indian country and over Indians for some crimes they commit against non-Indians. Under the act, "the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States... [extend] to the Indian country." 10 Consequently, for jurisdictional purposes, Indian land is treated today as a "federal enclave," similar to a federal building, park, prison, or military base. The act has three important exceptions: it does not apply to crimes by Indians against Indians; to crimes by Indians that have been punished by the tribe; nor to crimes over which a treaty gives exclusive jurisdiction to the tribe. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Indian Tribal Sovereignty
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.