Over the past decade, the 29 federally-recognized Indian tribes in the State of Washington have become major players in the State’s economy. Tribes are aggressively creating and operating new businesses in the areas of real estate development, banking and finance, media, telecommunications, wholesale and retail trade, tourism, and gaming. Consider these facts:
- Washington tribes occupy more than 3.2 million acres of reservation lands.
- Washington tribes currently employ nearly 15,000 Indian and non-Indian employees. By comparison, Microsoft employs 20,000 Washingtonians.
- Washington tribes paid over $5.3 million dollars to the State in employment taxes, in 1997 alone.
- By 2002, Washington’s twenty-one gaming tribes generated $648 million in revenue, up from $620 million in 2001. 2
A corollary to the dramatic increase in tribal economic development is the increased interaction of tribes and non-Indian citizens who seek business, employment, or recreation on Indian reservations. In turn, legal matters between Indian tribes and non-Indians continue to increase.
As Indian law issues now intersect both litigation and transactional practices, and virtually every niche of law, 3 every attorney in Washington must be cognizant of general Indian law principles and stand prepared to answer common Indian law questions. Likewise, all tribal and county decisionmakers should understand the contours of Indian law, particularly issues of civil and criminal jurisdiction. For that reason, I share with you, participants in the 2nd Annual Washington State Tribal/County Criminal Justice Summit, some legal principles that govern relations between Indians and non-Indians in Washington, in hopes that you and counsel for your tribe or county will continue the dialogue on such critical issues.
Question: "What is Tribal Sovereignty?"
Answer: Indian tribes are "distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights" in matters of local self- government.4 Although no longer "possessed of the full attributes of sovereignty," tribes remain a "separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations."5 In short, Indians possess "the right . . . to make their own laws and be ruled by them."6
Much like the State government, tribal governments are elaborate entities, consisting of executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The office of the tribal chairman (like that of the state governor) and the tribal council (the state legislature) operate the tribe under a tribal constitution and code of laws.
Question: "Are Tribal Courts Different than State and Federal Courts?"
Answer: Yes. Although Washington’s 25 tribal courts are modeled after Anglo-American courts,7 Indian courts are significantly different.8 Tribal judges, who are often tribal members, are not necessarily lawyers.
Tribal courts operate under the tribes’ written and unwritten code of laws. Most tribal codes contain civil rules of procedure specific to tribal court, as well as tribal statutes and regulations. Such laws outline the powers of the tribal court and may set forth limitations on tribal court jurisdiction. 9
A tribe’s code also includes customary and traditional practices, which are based on oral history and may not be codified in tribal statutes and regulations.10 Tribal judges consider testimony regarding tribal custom and tradition from tribal elders and historians, who need not base their opinions on documentary evidence as may be required by state and federal evidentiary rules.
Tribal courts generally follow their own precedent and give significant deference to the decisions of other Indian courts. However, because there is no official tribal court reporter 11 and because not all tribal courts keep previous decisions on file, finding such caselaw can be difficult.12 The opinions of federal and state courts are persuasive authority, but tribal judges are not bound by such precedents. Nevertheless, Washington’s state courts extend full faith and credit to valid tribal court orders,13 and federal courts grant comity to tribal court rulings.14
Before handling a matter in tribal court, counsel must appreciate the character of tribal courts, pay careful attention to tribal laws and statutes, and understand the fundamental differences between tribal courts and state and federal courts.
Question: "Can Tribes Be Sued for Damages or Equitable Relief?"
Answer: Probably not. Like other sovereign governmental entities, tribes enjoy common law sovereign immunity and cannot be sued:15 An Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has "unequivocally" authorized the suit or the tribe has "clearly" waived its immunity 16 (for examples of waiver, see discussion below regarding tribal insurance). There is a strong presumption against waiver of tribal sovereign immunity.17
The doctrine of sovereign immunity shields tribes from suit for monetary damages and requests for declaratory or injunctive relief. 18 However, tribal government officials who act beyond the scope of their authority are not immune from claims for damages.19
Tribes are also immune from the enforcement of a subpoena, e.g., to compel production of documents.20 Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Bishop Paiute Tribe v. County of Inyo, 275 F.3d 893 (2002), certiorari granted, 123 S. Ct. 618, reaffirmed that tribes are immune from subpoena enforcement, in barring the execution of a warrant to obtain confidential payroll records for casino employees. The Supreme Court heard argument on Bishop Paiute in early 2003 and, though expected by many tribal advocates to reverse the Ninth Circuit, the Court remanded the case for reconsideration of other issues. As such, Washington tribes remain immune from subpoena enforcement and county law enforcement cannot use a superior court’s subpoena power as a means to obtain casino records.
Tribal immunity generally extends to agencies of the tribe 21 such as tribal casinos, resorts, and other business enterprises. As many Washington citizens flock to tribal casinos, slip-and-falls and other tort claims arising on tribal reservations have increased. Nevertheless, courts routinely dismiss personal injury suits against tribes for lack of jurisdiction. 22
Therefore, in considering whether to sue a tribe on behalf of an injured party, counsel must closely evaluate issues of sovereign immunity and waiver. Unless a plaintiff can show clear evidence of tribal waiver or unequivocal Congressional abrogation, a judge will simply dismiss any suit filed against a tribe for damages for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Question: "Can Tribes Be Sued to Enforce a Contract?"
Answer: Probably not. Tribes retain immunity from suit when conducting business transactions both on and off the reservation. 23 Generally, a tribe can only be sued in contract if the agreement explicitly waived tribal immunity;24 a waiver will not be implied.25 Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that a contractual agreement to arbitrate disputes constitutes a clear waiver of immunity.26
Increasingly, tribes will agree to limited waivers of immunity. Some tribes set up subordinate entities whose assets, the tribes acknowledge, are not immune from suit, levy, or execution (although assets not held by the entity remain protected by immunity).27
So, if asked to sue a tribe for breach of contract, counsel should first consider the entity with which your client contracted – i.e., a tribe, which is likely immune from suit; or a subordinate entity, for which the tribe may have waived its immunity. If asked to create a contract with a tribe, counsel must explain to his or her client that there may not be any remedy available in the event of a contractual breach. Counsel should then negotiate with the tribe to reach a meeting of the minds with respect to the immunity issue. Again, some tribes will agree to a limited waiver.
Question: "Can Tribes Be Sued for Employment Discrimination?"
Answer: Probably not. Both Title VII 28 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)29 expressly exclude Indian tribes.30 Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has held that tribes are immune from suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).31 Tribes are also immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 32 Likewise, state discrimination laws do not apply to tribal employers.33
Tribally-owned entities are generally not subject to state and federal discrimination laws either.34 Tribal officials are also immune from suit arising from alleged discriminatory behavior, so long as they acted within the scope of their authority. 35 In short, any employment suit against a tribe or its officials based upon federal or state discrimination law will likely be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Washington’s tribes have become one of the State’s largest employers. As a result, no n-Indians’ employment records and documents concerning tribal employment practices are increasingly becoming the focus of discovery, even in litigation against non-tribal entities. If the employee is a party, his or her employment records are discoverable if they are in the employee’s custody or control. However, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, a court cannot subpoena a tribe to produce the employee’s records.36 By the same token, a court cannot compel a tribe – or Interior or BIA 37 – to provide documents about the tribe’s employment practices, i.e., matters "internal" to the tribe.
Question: "Can Tribes Be Sued for Violation of Labor and Employment Laws?"
Answer: Maybe. The circuits are split regarding the application of federal regulatory employment laws to tribal employers. The Ninth Circuit has applied the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)38 and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)39 to tribes, reasoning that such statutes of general applicability govern tribal employment activity because Indian tribes are not explicitly exempted from the laws.40 The Seventh and Second Circuits have adopted the Ninth Circuit’s rationale and also applied OSHA and ERISA to tribes,41 and the Seventh Circuit leans toward application of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)42 to tribal employers.43
Conversely, the Tenth and Eight Circuits have refused to apply to tribes such laws as OSHA, ERISA, FLSA, and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA),44 because doing so would encroach upon well-established principles of tribal sovereignty and tribal self- governance.45 While the Ninth Circuit’s rulings that apply federal employment statutes of general applicability to tribes are binding in Washington, and the decisions of the Seventh and Second Circuits serve as persuasive precedent, state labor laws and workers’ compensation statutes remain inapplicable to tribal businesses.46
Question: "Where Should a Claim Be Filed that Arises on the Reservation?"
Answer: It depends. Subject matter jurisdiction of tribal, state or federal courts depends largely upon (1) whether the defendant is an Indian or non-Indian person or entity; 47 and (2) whether the act occurred on Indian fee or allotted lands, non-Indian-owned reservation lands, or even a state right-of-way on the reservation. 48 These two complex issues should be the first area of inquiry for any question regarding jurisdiction over a dispute arising on a reservation.
Tribal courts have jurisdiction over a suit by any party – Indian or non-Indian – against an Indian person, a tribe, or tribal entity for a claim arising on the reservation. 49 Jurisdiction over lawsuits between non-Indians arising on the reservation lies in state court.50 So, assuming the plaintiff is prepared to show clear or unequivocal waiver of tribal immunity, counsel should file any tort claims arising on Indian lands or in tribal casinos, in tribal court.
Specifically, state courts have jurisdiction over any dispute arising from an auto accident occurring on a state right-of-way through the reservation, including a dispute between non-Indian citizens,51 and a suit by an Indian against a non-Indian. 52 As such, common claims that arise on Washington State highways running through reservations should be brought in state court.
Question: "Can Non-Indians Be Sued in Tribal Court?"
Answer: It depends. Generally, a tribal court can only assert jurisdiction over a claim against a non-Indian person or entity when "necessary to protect tribal self- government or to control internal relations."53 Essentia lly, a tribal court only has jurisdiction over the reservation activities of non-Indian parties "who enter consensual relationships with the tribe . . . through commercial dealing, contract, leases, or other arrangements."54 As such, a tribal court likely possesses jurisdiction over any litigation arising from a contract with a tribe.
State courts may exercise jurisdiction over a non-Indian person or entity for a claim arising on the reservation. 55 Federal courts may assert jurisdiction over a claim against a non-Indian party based upon reservation activities if there is federal question jurisdiction, 56 or diversity jurisdiction. 57 Thus, absent a contractual relationship with the tribe, non-Indian parties can only be sued in state or federal court.
Question: "Can Non-Indians Challenge the Assertion of Tribal Court Jurisdiction?"
Answer: Yes. If sued in tribal court, non-Indian persons or entities can challenge the tribal court’s assertion of jurisdiction in federal court. However, federal courts typically stay their proceedings to allow the tribal court to determine its own jurisdiction. 58 Thus, before challenging a tribal court’s assertion of jurisdiction in federal court, counsel must first exhaust tribal remedies.59
In any case, a tribal court first decides jurisdiction over non-Indian parties. If the tribal court rules that it has jurisdiction, it proceeds with the case. If the federal court later agrees that the tribal court had jurisdiction, it will not relitigate the case.60 Therefore, counsel sho uld thoroughly present the merits of his or her client’s case to the tribal judge, as there may not be a subsequent opportunity to do so in federal court. In doing so, counsel should be ever mindful of the unique aspects of tribal courts described above.
Question: "Who Can Be Prosecuted in Tribal Court?"
Answer: No. Tribal courts do not have general criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian crimes occurring on the reservation. 61 However, tribal courts do retain the power to exclude any unwanted person from their reservations.62
Jurisdiction for non-Indian criminal offenses on the reservation lies with state or federal courts:63 Crimes committed on the reservation by non-Indians against non-Indians are subject to state jurisdiction. 64 Also, although unsupported by federal law, Washington state courts typically try non-Indians for traffic and other minor offenses occurring on the reservation. Federal courts have jurisdiction under the General Crimes Act 65 over reservation crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians or Indian "interests" (e.g., property).66
The U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that tribes have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians arose in Western Washington. 67 As a result, Washington’s tribes are very aware of that bright-line rule, and rarely, if ever, will a non-Indian face tribal court prosecution in for reservation offenses.
Generally, in the absence of federal statutes that limit tribal jurisdiction, 68 tribal criminal jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country is complete, inherent and exclusive.69 Under Public Law 280 and subsequent state legislation, the State of Washington has assumed criminal jurisdiction over Indians on Indian lands in eight enumerated areas.70 Some Washington tribes, however, have retroceded from the state’s jurisdiction and restored criminal jurisdiction over Indians on their lands to the tribe’s courts.
In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Duro v. Reina, 71 that state or federal courts also had jurisdiction over on-reservation crimes of Indians who are not members of the tribal community in which the crime occurred. However, Congress quickly overrode Duro, and affirmed the "inherent power of Indian tribes . . . to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians."72 The Ninth Circuit upheld the statute – commonly known as "the Duro fix" – in an opinion issued in 2001. 73 Thus, absent federal statutes that limit tribal jurisdiction, 74 Washington tribal courts retain jurisdiction over crimes committed by any Indian (member or nonmember) on the reservation.
Washington State is witnessing firsthand both the tremendous rise in tribal economic development, and an array of legal disputes between Indians and non-Indians. Indeed, Indian law principles impact litigation and transactional practices, and intersect general tort, contract, employment, and criminal law. Further, Indian law issues implicate tribal, state and federal court practice and challenge an advocate’s understandings of procedural and jurisdictional principles. For these reasons, it is vital that you recognize and understand the Indian law issues that you and/or your constituents will inevitably encounter in Washington.
1 See Tiller, Veronica and Robert E. Chase, Economic Contributions of Indian Tribes to the State of Washington, http://www.goia.wa.gov/econdev/index.html.
2 See Alan Meister, "Indian Gaming: Economic Outlook," Native American Casino, October 2003.
3 See generally Matt Fleischer, No Reservations About Indian Law, The National Law Journal, May 8, 2000 ("Like corporations, tribes now need advice on employment law, trademarks, Federal Communications Commission regulations, bond financing, environmental standards and taxation.")
4 Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 559 (1832).
5 U.S. v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1886).
6 Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 220 (1959).
7 See Michael Taylor, Modern Practice in the Indian Courts, 10 Univ. Puget Sound Law Rev. 231 (1989); see generally DAVID H. GETCHES ET AL., CASES AND MATERIALS ON FEDERAL INDIAN LAW (4th ed. 1998), at 390.
8 As the U.S. Supreme Court recently explained:
Tribal courts . . . differ from other American courts (and often from one another) in their structure, in the substantive law they apply, and in the independence of their judges. Although some modern tribal courts "mirror American courts" and "are guided by written codes, rules, procedures, and guidelines," tribal law is still frequently unwritten, being based instead "on the values, mores, and norms of a tribe and expressed in its customs, traditions, and practices," and is often "handed down orally or by example from one generation to another." The resulting law applicable in tribal courts is a complex "mix of tribal codes and federal, state, and traditional law," which would be unusually difficult for an outsider to sort out.
Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) (citations omitted); see also Taylor, supra note 7; GETCHES, supra note 11, at pp. 413-418 (discussing unique nature of tribal courts).
9 See Taylor, supra note 7, at 238-241.
10 See Id.
11 The Indian Law Reporter (Indian L. Rptr.) has published selected tribal court opinions since 1983. See Id.
12 See Id.
13 See, e.g., In re Buehl, 87 Wn.2d 649 (Wash. 1976); Jim v. CIT Financial Services Corp., 533 P.2d 751 (N.M. 1975); Sheppard v. Sheppard, 655 P.2d 895 (Idaho 1982), cited in GETCHES, supra note 7, at 656-58.
14 See, e.g., Wilson v. Marchington, 127 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1997); In Matter of Marriage of Red Fox, 542 P.2d 918 (1975); Mexican v. Circle Bear, 370 N.W.2d 737 (S.D.1985); Leon v. Numkena, 689 P.2d 566 (Ariz.Ct.App.1984); Wippert v. Blackfeet Tribe, 654 P.2d 512 (Mont. 1982); Wakefield v. Little Light, 347 A.2d 228 (Md.1975); In Re Lynch’s Estate, 377 P.2d 199 (Ariz. 1962), cited in GETCHES, supra note 7, at 656-58. Comity "is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws." Begay v. Miller, 222 P.2d 624 (Ariz. 1950), quoting Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895).
15 Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978).
16 Id.; Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 757 (1998) ("As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity."); see also Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe, 498 U.S. 505 (1991) ("Suits against Indian tribes are barred by sovereign immunity absent a clear waiver by the tribe or congressional abrogation.").
17 Demontiney v. U.S., 255 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2001), citing Pan Am. Co. v. Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, 884 F.2d 416 (9th Cir. 1989).
18 Santa Clara Pueblo, supra note 15; Imperial Granite Co. v. Pala Band of Mission Indians, 940 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir. 1991); Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1985).
19 Imperial Granite Co., supra note 18. Then again, tribal officials who do act within the scope of their authority are protected from suit under the tribe’s immunity. See Hardin, supra note 18.
20 United States v. James, 980 F.2d 1314, 1319-20 (9th Cir. 1992).
21 Weeks Construction, Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Housing Authority, 797 F.2d 668 (8th Cir. 1986). Cf. Wilson v. Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, 459 F. Supp. 366, 368-69 (D.N.D. 1978).
22 See Barker-Hatch v. Viejas Group, 83 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (S.D.Cal 2000); Gavle v. Little Six, Inc., 524 N.W.2d 280 (Minn.App.1995).
23 Kiowa, supra note 19; In re Greene, 980 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1992).
24 Kiowa, supra note 19; Weeks, supra note 27.
25 Maynard v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 984 F.2d 14 (1st Cir. 1994).
26 C&L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Oklahoma, 532 U.S. 411 (2001).
27 See generally GETCHES, supra note 11, at 383-88.
28 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
29 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213.
30 Pink v. Modoc Indian Health Project, 157 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 1998); Dille v. Council of Energy Resource Tribes, 801 F.2d 373 (10th Cir. 1986); but see Florida Paraplegic Assoc., Inc. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, 166 F.3d 1126 (11th Cir. 1999) (held public accommodation portion of ADA applicable to tribes but held that tribe was immu ne from suit).
31 29 U.S.C. § 621-34; EEOC v. Karuk Tribe Housing Authority, 260 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2001); but see EEOC v. Cherokee Nation, 871 F.2d 937 (10th Cir. 1989) ("ADEA is not applicable because its enforcement would directly interfere with the Cherokee Nation’s treaty-protected right of self-government"); EEOC v. Fond du Lac Heavy Equip. & Constr. Co., Inc., 986 F.2d 246 (8th Cir. 1993).
32 See Corrigan v. Bargala, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 33671, 1999 WL 1217935 (9th Cir. 1999); Dry v. City of Durant, 242 F.3d 388 (10th Cir. 2000).
33 See, e.g., A.R.S. § 41-1464 (exempts Arizona’s tribes from state employment discrimination laws); see also New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 463 U.S. 324 (1983) ("State jurisdiction is preempted by the operation of federal law if it interferes with or is incompatible with federal and tribal interests reflected in the federal law, unless the state interests at stake are sufficient to justify the assertion of state authority."); FELIX S. COHEN, COHEN’S HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW (Strickland 1982), at 259 (state civil laws are "generally not applicable to Indian affairs within the territory of an Indian tribe, absent the consent of Congress").
34 See Hagen v. Sisseton-Wahpeton Community College, 205 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2000).
35 See Hardin, supra note 18.
36 See James, supra note 20.
37 See Klamath, supra note 22.
38 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.
39 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
40 Donovan v. Coeur d’Alene Tribal Farm, 751 F.2d 1113 (9th Cir. 1985) (right of self-government is too broad to defeat applicability of OSHA); DOL v. OSHA Review Comm’n, 935 F.2d 182 (9th Cir. 1991) (applying OSHA); Labor Industry Pension Fund v. Warm Springs Forest Products Industries, 939 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1991) (applying ERISA).
41 Smart v. State Farm Ins., 868 F.2d 929 (7th Cir. 1989) (the "argument that ERISA will interfere with the tribe's right of self-government is overbroad"); Reich v. Mashantucket Sand & Gravel, 95 F.3d 174 (2d. Cir. 1996) (following Ninth and 7th Circuits to apply OSHA).
42 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
43 Reich v. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 4 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 1993).
44 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) et seq.
45 Donovan v. Navajo Forest Products, Indus., 692 F.2d 709 (10th Cir. 1982) (OSHA held inapplicable to tribe in part because enforcement "would dilute the principles of tribal sovereignty and self-government recognized in the treaty:); see also EEOC v. v. Fond du Lac, supra note 34.
46 See Begay v. Kerr McGee Corp, 682 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982); Tibbets v. Leech Lake Reservation Business Comm., 397 N.W.2d 883 (Minn. 1986) (held Minnesota worker’ compensation law inapplicable to tribal employer); see generally Mescalero Apache, COHEN, supra note 36.
47 To make the issue of jurisdiction even more complicated, courts consider whether the party is a tribal "member" and "nonmember." In short, "nonmembers" are non-Indian persons or entities, or Indian persons who are not enrolled as a member of the tribe which is asserting jurisdiction. See U.S. v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978); Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 (1980); Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990); Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997); Wilson v. Marchington, 127 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1997). In order to keep this analysis more simp le, the terms "Indian" and "non-Indian" will be used.
48 See, e.g., Montana v. U.S., 450 U.S. 544 (1981); Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 492 U.S. 408 (1989) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993); Strate, supra note 54.
49 Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1958).
50 See Strate, supra note 47.
52 Wilson v. Marchington, 127 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1997).
53 Montana, supra note 48.
54 Id; FMC v. Shoshone-Bancock Tribes, 905 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1990).
55 Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, 467 U.S. 138 (1984).
56 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343.
57 28 U.SC. § 1332.
58 See Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9 (1987); National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845 (1985).
59 Id; Stock West Corp. v. Taylor, 964 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1992).
60 LaPlante, supra note 58.
61 Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978).
62 Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1985).
63 State v. Schmuck, 121 Wn.2d 373 (Wash. 1993).
64 New York ex rel Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496 (1946); Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984).
65 18 U.S.C. § 1152.
66 Williams v. U.S., 327 U.S. 711 (1946).
67 In Oliphant, supra note 64, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Suquamish tribal court – which occupies land on the Kitsap Peninsula in Western Washington – did not have jurisdiction to prosecute a non-Indian who assaulted a tribal police officer and resisted arrest.
68 See, e.g., the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1153, 3242.
69 Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883).
70 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a); RCW 37.12.010; McCrea v. Denison, 76 Wn. App. 395, 398 n. 3 (1994).
71 495 U.S. 676 (1990).
72 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2).
73 See U.S. v. Enas, 255 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2001).
74 See, e.g., the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1153, 3242.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.