Tribal court

Last updated
Independent Tribal Courts
EstablishedIndian Reorganization Act of 1934
LocationVarious Native American tribal territories
Composition methodTribal judiciary
Authorised byTribal sovereignty, Tribal constitutions
Number of positionsVaries by tribe

Independent tribal courts are judicial systems that are established and operated by Native American tribes within the United States. [1] These courts are separate from the federal and state court systems and are designed to handle legal matters within the tribe's jurisdiction. The purpose of independent tribal courts is to provide a legal framework for Native American tribes to govern themselves and to resolve disputes within their communities, without interference from the United States federal or state governments. [2] The independent tribal court system is an important tool for tribes to maintain their own legal traditions and to resolve disputes within their communities. [3]

Contents

Tribal courts are also important for preserving tribal sovereignty and self-determination. [4] However, they are limited in jurisdiction and funding.[ attribution needed ]

History

The history of independent tribal courts is complex and has been shaped by the federal government's policies towards Native American tribes. [5] The establishment of independent tribal courts was a result of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which aimed to promote tribal self-government and to preserve Native American culture and traditions. [6] However, the federal government's policies towards Native American tribes have been inconsistent, and the relationship between the federal government and tribal courts has been fraught with tension. [7] Despite these challenges, independent tribal courts remain an important part of indigenous resistance to western legal and cultural influence.

Indian Reorganization Act of 1934

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 had a significant impact on how Native American tribal courts operate. The Act aimed to promote tribal self-government and to preserve Native American culture and traditions. It allowed tribes to establish their own governments and to adopt constitutions and bylaws. [8] This gave tribes the power to create their own legal systems and to establish independent tribal courts [9] The Act also provided funding for tribal courts and allowed tribes to contract with the federal government for law enforcement services. [10] As a result, independent tribal courts became an important tool for tribes to maintain their own legal traditions and to resolve disputes within their communities. [11]

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 also had a broader impact on the relationship between Native American tribes and the federal government. [12] The Act recognized the importance of tribal sovereignty and self-determination and aimed to promote these values. [13] It allowed tribes to establish their own governments and to make decisions about their own affairs. This was a significant departure from previous federal policies, which had sought to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream American culture. [9] The Act also provided funding for economic development and education, which helped to improve the lives of Native Americans. Overall, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 played a crucial role in promoting tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

Funding

Native American tribal courts receive funding from various sources, including tribal, state, and federal funding. Tribal funding is the primary source of funding for tribal courts, and it is often used to cover the costs of court operations, salaries for judges and court staff, and other related expenses. [14] State funding is another source of funding for tribal courts, and it is often used to support court operations and to provide training and technical assistance to tribal court personnel. [15] Federal funding is also available for tribal courts, and it is often used to support court operations, provide training and technical assistance, and to fund specific programs and initiatives. [16]

Under Title 25 US Code 3601, the federal government provides funding for tribal courts through the Indian Tribal Justice Support program. [17] This program provides funding for tribal courts to improve their operations, provide training and technical assistance, and to fund specific programs and initiatives. [15] The program is designed to support the development of effective and efficient tribal justice systems that are consistent with tribal traditions and values. The program also provides funding for tribal courts to address issues related to domestic violence, child abuse, and other crimes that are prevalent in Indian country. [18] Overall, the funding sources for Native American tribal courts are diverse and are designed to support the development of effective and efficient tribal justice systems that are consistent with tribal traditions and values. [19]

Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)

TPA provide federal funding for Tribal courts through a collection of programs. For example, in 2018, $28,698,000 was granted to tribal governments through TPA programs. [20] Although TPA funds allow tribal governments to operate more effectively, the programs have long been criticized for not allocating adequate funds to the tribes most in need of federal support. [21]

Jurisdiction

Native American tribal courts have jurisdiction over a wide range of cases that occur within their respective tribes' territories. Tribal courts have the authority to hear both civil and criminal cases, including disputes over property, contracts, and family law matters such as child custody and adoption. [22] Tribal courts also have jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by Native Americans within their territories, including offenses related to drugs, alcohol, and domestic violence. [23] However, tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over non-Native Americans who commit crimes within tribal territories, except in limited circumstances. [24]

Cases that involve non-Native Americans are typically referred to state or federal courts. The Major Crimes Act of 1885 [25] gives the federal government jurisdiction over certain major crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal lands, including murder, manslaughter, and kidnapping. [26] The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 also allows for the federal government to prosecute non-Native Americans who commit crimes against Native Americans on tribal lands. [27] In addition, some states have entered into agreements with tribes to allow for state jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by non-Native Americans within tribal territories. [28]

Interaction with the state and federal court system

Title 25 United States Code 3601

Title 25 was a congressional procedure passed in 2010 to provide federal support and protections for tribal courts. [29] The declaration officially established: [30]

  • "there is a government-to-government relationship between the United States and each Indian tribe;
  • the United States has a trust responsibility to each tribal government that includes the protection of the sovereignty of each tribal government;
  • Congress, through statutes, treaties, and the exercise of administrative authorities, has recognized the self-determination, self-reliance, and inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes;
  • Indian tribes possess the inherent authority to establish their own form of government, including tribal justice systems;
  • tribal justice systems are an essential part of tribal governments and serve as important forums for ensuring public health and safety and the political integrity of tribal governments;
  • Congress and the Federal courts have repeatedly recognized tribal justice systems as the appropriate forums for the adjudication of disputes affecting personal and property rights;
  • traditional tribal justice practices are essential to the maintenance of the culture and identity of Indian tribes and to the goals of this chapter;
  • tribal justice systems are inadequately funded, and the lack of adequate funding impairs their operation; and
  • tribal government involvement in and commitment to improving tribal justice systems is essential to the accomplishment of the goals of this chapter."

Denezpi v. United States

In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Denezpi v. United States that the Double Jeopardy clause of the Bill of Rights does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, if the case is heard in both a tribal and federal court under the dual sovereignty principle.[ citation needed ]

Sentencing authority

The sentencing process in Native American tribal courts varies depending on the tribe and the nature of the case. In general, tribal courts aim to incorporate traditional tribal values and customs into their sentencing practices. [31] This may involve a focus on rehabilitation and restoration rather than punishment. [31] Sentences may include community service, restitution, or participation in traditional healing ceremonies. In some cases, tribal courts may also work with state or federal courts to develop joint sentencing agreements. [32] These agreements allow for the coordination of sentencing between tribal and non-tribal courts and can help to ensure that sentences are consistent and fair. Overall, the sentencing process in Native American tribal courts is designed to reflect the unique cultural and legal traditions of each tribe and to promote the well-being of the community as a whole. [24]

Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010

The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 is a federal law that was enacted to address the issue of crime and violence in Native American communities. The Act aims to improve public safety in Indian country by increasing the authority of tribal courts and law enforcement agencies. [33] It provides funding for tribal courts and law enforcement agencies, and it allows tribes to exercise greater control over their own justice systems. [34] The Act also includes provisions to improve coordination between tribal, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and it provides for the appointment of special prosecutors to handle cases involving violence against Native American women. [35]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Reorganization Act</span> United States Law

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of June 18, 1934, or the Wheeler–Howard Act, was U.S. federal legislation that dealt with the status of American Indians in the United States. It was the centerpiece of what has been often called the "Indian New Deal".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal sovereignty in the United States</span> Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of Indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States.

Public Law 280 is a federal law of the United States that changes legal jurisdiction on Indian lands and over Indian persons. The law transfers some jurisdiction from the federal government to states in both civil and criminal cases in certain places. It was passed in 1953.

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case deciding that Indian tribal courts have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The case was decided on March 6, 1978 with a 6–2 majority. The court opinion was written by William Rehnquist, and a dissenting opinion was written by Thurgood Marshall, who was joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger. Justice William J. Brennan did not participate in the decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian reservation</span> Land managed by Native American nations under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs

An American Indian reservation is an area of land held and governed by a U.S. federal government-recognized Native American tribal nation, whose government is autonomous, subject to regulations passed by the United States Congress and administered by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, and not to the U.S. state government in which it is located. Some of the country's 574 federally recognized tribes govern more than one of the 326 Indian reservations in the United States, while some share reservations, and others have no reservation at all. Historical piecemeal land allocations under the Dawes Act facilitated sales to non–Native Americans, resulting in some reservations becoming severely fragmented, with pieces of tribal and privately held land being treated as separate enclaves. This intersection of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political, and legal difficulties.

Native American women encounter a disproportionate level of sexual violence from verbal abuse to physical harm, including but not limited to domestic and sexual assaults. Such violations not only result in lasting detrimental effects on the individuals subjected to them but also reverberate throughout their entire community, exacerbating social challenges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Gaming Regulatory Act</span> US federal law

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is a 1988 United States federal law that establishes the jurisdictional framework that governs Indian gaming. There was no federal gaming structure before this act. The stated purposes of the act include providing a legislative basis for the operation/regulation of Indian gaming, protecting gaming as a means of generating revenue for the tribes, encouraging economic development of these tribes, and protecting the enterprises from negative influences. The law established the National Indian Gaming Commission and gave it a regulatory mandate. The law also delegated new authority to the U.S. Department of the Interior and created new federal offenses, giving the U.S. Department of Justice authority to prosecute them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Indian Police</span> United States Indian Protection Organization

The United States Indian Police (USIP) was organized in 1880 by John Q. Tufts, the Indian Commissioner in Muskogee, Indian Territory, to police the Five Civilized Tribes. Their mission is to "provide justice services and technical assistance to federally recognized Indian tribes." The USIP, after its founding in 1880, recruited many of their police officers from the ranks of the existing Indian Lighthorsemen. Unlike the Lighthorse who were under the direction of the individual tribes, the USIP was under the direction of the Indian agent assigned to the Union Agency. Many of the US Indian police officers were given Deputy U.S. Marshal commissions that allowed them to cross jurisdictional boundaries and also to arrest non-Indians.

Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court concluded that Indian tribes could not prosecute Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed by those nonmember Indians on their reservations. The decision was not well received by the tribes, because it defanged their criminal codes by depriving them of the power to enforce them against anyone except their own members. In response, Congress amended a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301, to include the power to "exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians" as one of the powers of self-government.

Tribal–state compacts are legal agreements between U.S. state government and Native American tribes primarily used for gambling, health care, child welfare, or other affairs. They are declared necessary for any Class III gaming on Indian reservations under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA). They were designed to allow tribal and state governments to come to a "business" agreement. A compact can be thought of as "negotiated agreement between two political entities that resolves questions of overlapping jurisdictional responsibilities Compacts affect the delicate power balance between states, federal, and tribal governments. It is these forms that have been a major source of controversy surrounding Indian gaming. Thus, it is understandable that the IGRA provides very detailed instructions for how states and tribes can make compacts cooperatively and also details the instructions for how the federal government can regulate such agreements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian country jurisdiction</span>

Indian country jurisdiction, or the extent which tribal powers apply to legal situations in the United States, has undergone many drastic shifts since the beginning of European settlement in America. Over time, federal statutes and Supreme Court rulings have designated more or less power to tribal governments, depending on federal policy toward Indians. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have created important precedents in Indian country jurisdiction, such as Worcester v. Georgia, Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, Montana v. United States, and McGirt v. Oklahoma.

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that followed the death of one member of a Native American tribe at the hands of another on reservation land. Crow Dog was a member of the Brulé band of the Lakota Sioux. On August 5, 1881 he shot and killed Spotted Tail, a Lakota chief; there are different accounts of the background to the killing. The tribal council dealt with the incident according to Sioux tradition, and Crow Dog paid restitution to the dead man's family. However, the U.S. authorities then prosecuted Crow Dog for murder in a federal court. He was found guilty and sentenced to hang.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010</span>

The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 is a law, signed into effect by President Obama, that expands the punitive abilities of tribal courts across the nation. The law allows tribal courts operating in Indian country to increase jail sentences handed down in criminal cases. This was a major step toward improving enforcement and justice in Indian country.

United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that lands designated as a reservation in Mississippi are "Indian country" as defined by statute, although the reservation was established nearly a century after Indian removal and related treaties. The court ruled that, under the Major Crimes Act, the State has no jurisdiction to try a Native American for crimes covered by that act that occurred on reservation land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Native American policy of the Barack Obama administration</span>

The United States public policy agenda on issues affecting Native Americans under the Obama administration includes the signing of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, which allowed tribal courts to extend and expand sentences handed down to them in criminal cases, strengthening tribal autonomy. Obama also supported and enforced the Executive Order 13175, which requires the federal government to consult with tribal governments when deliberating over policies and programs that would affect tribal communities. Under the Obama Administration was also the launching of Michelle Obama's program Let's Move In Indian Country, which aims to improve opportunities for physical activity, to increase access to healthy food in tribal communities, and to create collaborations between private and public sectors to build programs that will end childhood obesity in Native communities. Obama also supported tribal communities through certain provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which allocated $510 million for rehabilitation of Native American housing, and the settlement of the Keepseagle case, a lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture for discriminating against tribal communities by not allowing them equal access to the USDA Farm Loan Program. Most recently, Obama signed Executive Order 13592, which seeks to improve educational opportunities for American Indian and Alaska Natives. Obama has been praised by many tribal leaders, including those who claim he has done more for Native Americans than all of his predecessors combined.

United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that American Indians convicted on reservation land were not deprived of the equal protection of the laws; (a) the federal criminal statutes are not based on impermissible racial classifications but on political membership in an Indian tribe or nation; and (b) the challenged statutes do not violate equal protection. Indians or non-Indians can be charged with first-degree murder committed in a federal enclave.

Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a Supreme Court of the United States case of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. After holding the case from the 2018 term, the case was decided on July 9, 2020, in a per curiam decision following McGirt v. Oklahoma that, for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, the reservations were never disestablished and remain Indian country.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that the domain reserved for the Muscogee Nation by Congress in the 19th century has never been disestablished and constitutes Indian country for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, meaning that the State of Oklahoma has no right to prosecute American Indians for crimes allegedly committed therein. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals applied the McGirt rationale to rule nine other Indigenous nations had not been disestablished. As a result, almost the entirety of the eastern half of what is now the State of Oklahoma remains Indian country, meaning that criminal prosecutions of Native Americans for offenses therein falls outside the jurisdiction of Oklahoma’s court system. In these cases, jurisdiction properly vests within the Indigenous judicial systems and the federal district courts under the Major Crimes Act.

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. 629 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to McGirt v. Oklahoma, decided in 2020. In McGirt, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Congress never properly disestablished the Indian reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma when granting its statehood, and thus almost half the state was still considered to be Native American land. As a result of McGirt, crimes under the Major Crimes Act by Native Americans in the reservations are treated as federal crimes rather than state crimes.

References

  1. ↑ "Federal Indian Law — Tribal Jurisdiction — Fifth Circuit Disclaims Independent Obligation to Ensure that Tribal Courts Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Disputes Involving Nonmembers. — Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 746 F.3d 167 (5th Cir.), reh'g en banc denied, 746 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2014)". Harvard Law Review. 128 (3): 1035–1044. 2015. JSTOR   24643875.
  2. ↑ Miller, Robert (October 2022). "Tribal Sovereignty and Economic Efficiency Versus the Courts". Washington Law Review. 97 (3): 775. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4071223. S2CID   248019034. SSRN   4071223. ProQuest   2735925610.
  3. ↑ Salmon, Sue (1976). "Jurisdiction: Exhaustion of Remedies and the Status of Tribal Courts". American Indian Law Review. 4 (2): 295–301. doi:10.2307/20067996. JSTOR   20067996.
  4. ↑ Keogh, Greg S. (2018). "Extending Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction Outside of Indian Country: Kelsey V. Pope". American Indian Law Review. 43 (1): 223–242. JSTOR   26632878.
  5. ↑ Rosen, Deborah A. (2007). "Tribal Sovereignty and State Jurisdiction". American Indians and State Law: Sovereignty, Race, and Citizenship, 1790-1880. University of Nebraska Press. pp. 19–50. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1djmgrn.5. ISBN   978-0-8032-3968-5. JSTOR   j.ctt1djmgrn.5.
  6. ↑ Kloeckner, Jane (2012). "Hold on to Tribal Sovereignty: Establishing Tribal Pesticide Programs that Recognize Inherent Tribal Authority and Promote Federal/Tribal Partnerships". Environmental Law Reporter. 42 (1): 10057. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1768410. S2CID   153006983. SSRN   1768410.
  7. ↑ Killsback, Leo (2021). "Federal Indian Law". Anthropology. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0263. ISBN   978-0-19-976656-7.
  8. ↑ Rosier, Paul C. (1 January 1999). "'The Old System Is No Success': The Blackfeet Nation's Decision to Adopt the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934". American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 23 (1): 1–37. doi:10.17953/aicr.23.1.hk2r70m37837n237.
  9. 1 2 Washburn, Wilcomb E. (June 1984). "A Fifty-Year Perspective on the Indian Reorganization Act". American Anthropologist. 86 (2): 279–289. doi:10.1525/aa.1984.86.2.02a00040.
  10. ↑ Kelly, Lawrence C. (August 1975). "The Indian Reorganization Act: The Dream and the Reality". Pacific Historical Review. 44 (3): 291–312. doi:10.2307/3638029. JSTOR   3638029.
  11. ↑ Wilson, Raymond; Rusco, Elmer R. (June 2002). "A Fateful Time: The Background and Legislative History of the Indian Reorganization Act". The Journal of American History. 89 (1): 277. doi:10.2307/2700890. JSTOR   2700890.
  12. ↑ "Indian Reorganization Act (1934)", Encyclopedia of United States Indian Policy and Law, 2300 N Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington DC 20037 United States: CQ Press, 2009, doi:10.4135/9781604265767.n314, ISBN   9781933116983 , retrieved 2023-10-30{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  13. ↑ Clemmer, Richard O. (1986). "Hopis, Western Shoshones, and Southern Utes: Three Different Responses to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934". American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 10 (2): 15–40. doi:10.17953/aicr.10.2.b60q70g353272087.
  14. ↑ "$934,000 Funding Available for Tribal Court Improvement". Targeted News Service. 11 February 2018. ProQuest   2000744432.
  15. 1 2 FY 2022 Funding Opportunities to Support Tribal Justice Systems. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2022.[ verification needed ]
  16. ↑ "Chippewa Cree Tribal Courts Receive Federal Funding". Targeted News Service. 5 October 2008. ProQuest   468758381.
  17. ↑ "Justice Department Awards $87 Million To Enhance, Support Tribal Justice And Safety" (Press release). The Department of Justice. 22 September 2014. ProQuest   1564022985.
  18. ↑ Branton, Regina; King, Kimi; Walsh, Justin (January 2022). "Criminal justice in Indian country: Examining declination rates of tribal cases". Social Science Quarterly. 103 (1): 69–81. doi:10.1111/ssqu.13100. S2CID   245045603.
  19. ↑ "OVC Support for Tribal Communities". Office for Victims of Crime. Retrieved 2023-10-30.
  20. ↑ Office, U. S. Government Accountability. "Tribal Funding: Actions Needed to Improve Information on Federal Funds That Benefit Native Americans | U.S. GAO". www.gao.gov. Retrieved 2023-11-12.
  21. ↑ "Tribes and Tribal Branding – Where Do We Go from Here?", Tribal Marketing, Tribal Branding, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, doi:10.1057/9781137349101_9, ISBN   9781137349101 {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  22. ↑ Henderson, M. Todd (2022-11-11), "What criminal authority do Indians have over non-Indians? Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978)", Native Americans and the Supreme Court, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 101–129, doi:10.4337/9781803925165.00010, ISBN   978-1-80392-516-5 , retrieved 2023-10-30
  23. ↑ LUNA-GORDINIER, ANNE (2023-05-02), "RESTORING TRIBAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION WITH THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT", Indigenous Justice and Gender, University of Arizona Press, pp. 83–104, doi:10.2307/j.ctv35n8b93.10, ISBN   978-0-8165-4970-2 , retrieved 2023-10-30
  24. 1 2 John, Krystal L. (2022-07-01), "Jurisdiction and Law in Indian Country", Tribal Administration Handbook, Michigan State University Press, pp. 193–208, doi:10.14321/j.cdbmfhq6x.17, ISBN   9781938065156 , retrieved 2023-10-30
  25. ↑ "Major Crimes Act (1885)", Encyclopedia of United States Indian Policy and Law, 2300 N Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington DC 20037 United States: CQ Press, 2009, doi:10.4135/9781604265767.n392, ISBN   9781933116983 , retrieved 2023-10-30{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  26. ↑ Deer, Sarah (2018). "NATIVE PEOPLE AND VIOLENT CRIME: Gendered Violence and Tribal Jurisdiction". Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race. 15 (1): 89–106. doi:10.1017/S1742058X18000012. S2CID   149628254. ProQuest   2076892567.
  27. ↑ "Indian Civil Rights Act (1968)", Multicultural America: A Multimedia Encyclopedia, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2013, doi:10.4135/9781452276274.n446, ISBN   9781452216836 , retrieved 2023-10-30{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  28. ↑ Henderson, M. Todd (2022-11-11), "What criminal authority do Indians have over non-Indians? Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978)", Native Americans and the Supreme Court, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 101–129, doi:10.4337/9781803925165.00010, ISBN   978-1-80392-516-5 , retrieved 2023-10-30
  29. ↑ "2010 US Code :: Title 25 - INDIANS :: CHAPTER 38 - INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE SUPPORT :: Sec. 3601 - Findings". Justia Law. Retrieved 2023-11-12.
  30. ↑ "25 U.S. Code § 3601 - Findings". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2023-11-12.
  31. 1 2 Canby, William C. (February 2005). "Commentary: Treatment of Tribal Court Convictions". Federal Sentencing Reporter. 17 (3): 220–221. doi:10.1525/fsr.2005.17.3.220.
  32. ↑ Fulton, Neil (Fall 2019). "All Things Considered: The Effect on Tribal Sovereignty of Using Tribal Court Convictions in United States Sentencing Guideline Calculations". American Journal of Criminal Law. 46 (2): 241–281. ProQuest   2383404244.
  33. ↑ "Tribal Justice and Safety | Tribal Law and Order Act". www.justice.gov. 2014-09-09. Retrieved 2023-10-30.
  34. ↑ "Tribal Law and Order Act | Tribal Outreach and Communication". Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program. Retrieved 2023-10-30.
  35. ↑ "The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010: A Step Forward for Native Women". Targeted News Service. 29 July 2010. ProQuest   734325658.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.