18 U.S.C. § 1151
Indian country defined
Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title, the term “Indian country”, as used in this chapter, means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 851
cases (176 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: Murphy v. Royal
Murphy v. Royal (2017)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 1151 . The reservation clause concerns us here.”
McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020)
“” 18 U. S. C. §1151 (a). So the relevant statute expressly contem- plates private land ownership within reservation bounda- ries.”
Hydro Resources, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010)
“How did EPA reach this conclusion? By regulation, EPA chose to define the term "Indian lands"the only lands for which it did not cede primary permitting authority to NMEDto be synonymous with "Indian country," as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151 . Section 1151, in…”
State v. Frank (2001)
“{1} This case requires us to review and clarify the current case law interpreting the definition of "dependent Indian community" contained in 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (b) (1994), for the purpose of determining whether the State has jurisdiction over this Navajo Defendant.”
State v. Frank (2002)
“The district court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and concluded that the area where the crash occurred is not Indian country as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (2000) and Blatchford v.”
Murphy v. Royal (2017)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 1151 . The reservation clause concerns us here.”
HRI, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency (2000)
“3 and 18 U.S.C. § 1151 . These petitions require us to consider several important questions, including the level of procedural formality required for EPA decisions regarding federal Indian country jurisdiction under the SDWA; the effect of state adjudications against a tribe on…”
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky (2007)
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the following categories of land within the original 1858 treaty boundaries of the Yankton Sioux Reservation remain part of the reservation and are Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (a): (a) land reserved to the federal…”
DeCoteau v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial District (1975)
“The parties agree that the state courts did not have jurisdiction if these lands are "Indian country," as defined in 18 U. S. C. § 1151 , [1] and that this question depends upon whether the lands retained reservation status after 1891.”
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY (2005)
“Writing for the majority, Judge Parker ruled that the parcels qualify as "Indian country," as that term is defined in 18 U. S. C. § 1151 , [5] because they fall within the boundaries of a reservation set aside by the 1794 Canandaigua Treaty for Indian use under federal…”
State v. St. Francis (1989)
“The trial court ruled that defendants bore the burden of proving that they are Indians and that the alleged offenses occurred in "Indian country," as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (1982). Defendants appeal from these rulings.”
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah (1996)
“13 On February 23, 1994, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Ha-gen, holding that the Uintah Valley Reservation had been diminished by Congress when its unallotted and unreserved lands were “opened” to non-Indian settlers pursuant to the 1902 Act, and…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a) — 5 cases
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah (1996)
“13 On February 23, 1994, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Ha-gen, holding that the Uintah Valley Reservation had been diminished by Congress when its unallotted and unreserved lands were “opened” to non-Indian settlers pursuant to the 1902 Act, and…”
Meashintubby v. Paulk (2023)
July v. Dowling (2025)
STATE v. FULLER (2024)
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.