Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION · CHAPTER 1. SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION · Part 3. Jurisdiction on Indian Lands and Indian Culture
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 2-1-301 (2026)

Assumption Of Criminal Jurisdiction Of Flathead Indian Country -- County Reimbursement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 2
  3. CHAPTER 1
  4. Part 3
  5. 2-1-301 Assumption of criminal jurisdiction of Flathead Indian country -- county reimbursement

TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 1. SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION

Part 3. Jurisdiction on Indian Lands and Indian Culture

Assumption Of Criminal Jurisdiction Of Flathead Indian Country -- County Reimbursement

2-1-301. (Temporary) Assumption of criminal jurisdiction of Flathead Indian country -- county reimbursement. (1) The state of Montana hereby obligates and binds itself to assume, as provided in this section, criminal jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory of the Flathead Indian reservation and country within the state in accordance with the consent of the United States given by the act of August 15, 1953 (Public Law 280, 83rd congress, 1st session).

(2) Unless the Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribes or Lake County withdraws consent to enforcement pursuant to 2-1-306, the state shall reimburse Lake County for assuming criminal jurisdiction under this section annually to the extent funds are appropriated by the legislature. The annual amount of reimbursement must be adjusted each year based on the consumer price index. (Terminates June 30, 2031--sec. 1, Ch. 764, L. 2025.)

2-1-301. (Effective July 1, 2031) Assumption of criminal jurisdiction of Flathead Indian country. The state of Montana hereby obligates and binds itself to assume, as herein provided, criminal jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory of the Flathead Indian reservation and country within the state in accordance with the consent of the United States given by the act of August 15, 1953 (Public Law 280, 83rd congress, 1st session).

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 81, L. 1963; R.C.M. 1947, 83-801; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 556, L. 2021.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Lake Cnty. v. State, 2024 MT 284 (Mont. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lake Cnty. v. State, 2024 MT 284 (Mont. 2024). · cites it 41× “Considering the State’s mootness and prudential standing arguments, the court denied the State’s motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment claim.”
In Re Est. of Big Spring, 2011 MT 109 (Mont. 2011). “676 , 676 (1889) (“all lands owned by any Indian or Indian tribes shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States, continue in full force and effect until revoked by the consent of the United States and the people of Montana’),…”
Balyeat Law, PC v. Pettit, 1998 MT 252 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 2× “Subsequently, in 1965, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes enacted Tribal Ordinance 40-A (Revised) pursuant to which the Tribes consented to the assumption of enumerated areas of civil jurisdiction by the state courts of Montana onto the Flathead Reservation.”
State v. Haskins, 887 P.2d 1189 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 2× “2d 78 ; §§ 2-1-301, et seq. MCA; and Campbell v. Crist (D.”
State v. Wayne Spotted Blanket, 1998 MT 59 (Mont. 1998). “1963 (codified at §§ 2-1-301, -302 and -303, MCA). Furthermore, as previously noted, the Tribes’ Ordinance 40-A (Revised) extended concurrent jurisdiction to the State over certain specific areas, including “Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Rehabilitation” and “All Criminal Laws…”
Stewart v. Bludworth (Mont. 2020). · cites it 2× “"In 1963, acting under the authority of PL-280 § 7, the State by legislative act (House Bill No.”
Lake Cnty. Inmates v. Lake Cnty. Jail (D. Mont. 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 2-1-301. This language is insufficient to waive immunity, however, as [t]o be a valid waiver, a state’s consent to suit must be unequivocally expressed in the statutory text.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 2-1-301(1): 1 case
Lake Cnty. v. State, 2024 MT 284 (Mont. 2024). “Considering the State’s mootness and prudential standing arguments, the court denied the State’s motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment claim.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 2-1-301(2): 1 case
Lake Cnty. v. State, 2024 MT 284 (Mont. 2024). “Considering the State’s mootness and prudential standing arguments, the court denied the State’s motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment claim.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.