18 U.S.C. § 1152
Laws governing
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, 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, except the District of Columbia, shall extend to the Indian country.
This section shall not extend to offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian, nor to any Indian committing any offense in the Indian country who has been punished by the local law of the tribe, or to any case where, by treaty stipulations, the exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses is or may be secured to the Indian tribes respectively.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 428
cases (95 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: United States v. Ramon Torres and Tony Fish
United States v. Ramon Torres and Tony Fish (1984)
“On appeal, Fish and Torres contend that the Government’s evidence was insufficient to prove that the crimes were punishable in Federal court and, in the alternative, that the sentences imposed by the district court were improper.”
United States v. Prentiss (2000)
“Prentiss’s Indian or non-Indian status and the Indian *964 or non-Indian status of the victim, which are necessary elements for his federal arson conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1152 . 1 Accordingly, we will treat Mr.”
United States v. Ricco Devon Prentiss (2001)
“In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1152 and 18 U.S.C. § 81 . Rec.”
United States v. Violet Bruce (2005)
“Violet Bruce appeals her conviction for simple assault on an Indian child less than 16 years of age on a reservation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 and 118(a)(5). In her sole claim of error, Bruce asserts that the case against her was brought under the wrong statute.”
BOSSE v. STATE (2021)
“18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 , 1153. ¶4 The question of whether Congress has disestablished a reservation is primarily established by the language of the law -- statutes and treaties -- concerning relations between the United States and a tribe.”
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022)
“” 18 U. S. C. §1152 . By its terms, the Act simply “extend[s]” the federal laws that apply on federal enclaves to Indian country.”
Albert Duro v. Edward Reina, Chief of Police, Salt River Department of Public Safety, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Co (1988)
“Crimes by Indians against non-Indians and crimes by non-Indians against Indians are punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1152 . That statute makes applicable in Indian country those criminal laws applicable in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction with several exceptions.”
McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020)
“See 18 U. S. C. §1152 . States are otherwise free 38 MCGIRT v.”
United States v. Johnny Smith (2019)
“§ 13 , the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), and 18 U.S.C. § 1152 , the Indian Country Crimes Act (ICCA).”
Negonsott v. Samuels (1993)
“The Indian Country Crimes Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1152 , extends the general criminal laws of federal maritime and enclave jurisdiction to Indian country, except for those “offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian.”
State v. Perank (1993)
“[2] The Ute Indian Tribe, also at our invitation, filed an amicus brief, but addressed only the issue of whether Perank is an Indian within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1152 . We note that neither Perank, the Department of Justice, nor the Tribe suggests that the Tenth Circuit's…”
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathaniel Earl KEYS, Defendant-Appellant (1996)
“Keys also argues that the Federal Enclaves Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152 , is an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to apply a general criminal code to the activities of non-Indians in Indian Country.”
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.