U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 15— CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF INDIANS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERALLY

25 U.S.C. § 1301

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
For purposes of this subchapter, the term—(1) “Indian tribe” means any tribe, band, or other group of Indians subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and recognized as possessing powers of self-government;(2) “powers of self-government” means and includes all governmental powers possessed by an Indian tribe, executive, legislative, and judicial, and all offices, bodies, and tribunals by and through which they are executed, including courts of Indian offenses; and means the inherent power of Indian tribes, hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians;(3) “Indian court” means any Indian tribal court or court of Indian offense; and(4) “Indian” means any person who would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as an Indian under section 1153, title 18, if that person were to commit an offense listed in that section in Indian country to which that section applies.(Pub. L. 90–284, title II, § 201, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 77; Pub. L. 101–511, title VIII, § 8077(b), (c), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1892.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1990—Par. (2). Pub. L. 101–511, § 8077(b), inserted at end “means the inherent power of Indian tribes, hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians;”.

Par. (4). Pub. L. 101–511, § 8077(c), added par. (4).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Title II of Pub. L. 90–284, which is classified generally to this subchapter, is popularly known as the “Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968”.

Time Limitation on Criminal Misdemeanor Ju­risdiction of Tribal Courts Over Non-Member Indians

Pub. L. 101–511, title VIII, § 8077(d), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1893, as amended by Pub. L. 102–124, § 1, Oct. 9, 1991, 105 Stat. 616, which provided that the effects of subsecs. (b) and (c), which amended this section, as those subsections affect the criminal misdemeanor jurisdiction of tribal courts over non-member Indians have no effect after Oct. 18, 1991, was repealed by Pub. L. 102–137, Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 646. Subsequent to repeal, Pub. L. 102–172, title VIII, § 8112A(b), Nov. 26, 1991, 105 Stat. 1202, purported to amend section 8077(d) of Pub. L. 101–511 by substituting “1993” for “1991”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 251 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Bercier v. Kiga
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bercier v. Kiga (2004) washctapp · cites it 7× “2069 , is no longer good law because it was abrogated by statutory amendments to 25 U.S.C. § 1301 . Br. of Appellant at 21-22.”
Bercier v. Kiga (2004) washctapp · cites it 7× “134 , is no longer good law because it was abrogated by statutory amendments to 25 U.S.C. § 1301 . Br. of Appellant at 21-22.”
United States v. Michael L. Enas (2001) ca9 · cites it 6× “25 U.S.C. § 1301 (2) (1990). The 1990 amendments modified this definition to include all governmental powers possessed by an Indian tribe, executive, legislative, and judicial, and all offices, bodies, and tribunals by and through which they are executed, including courts of…”
United States v. Violet Bruce (2005) ca9 · cites it 4× “However, under the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301 et al. (“ICRA”), tribal courts may not impose punishment greater than a year’s imprisonment or a $5,000 fine, or both.”
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (2014) scotus · cites it 2× “In this case then, the question is what type of immunity federal courts should accord to Tribes, commensurate with their retained sovereignty. In answering this question, the principal dissent analo- gizes tribal sovereign immunity to foreign sovereign im- munity.”
United States v. Lara (2004) scotus · cites it 7× “Compare 25 U.S.C. § 1301 (2) with Duro v. Reina, 495 U.”
Nevada v. Hicks (2001) scotus · cites it 2× “646 , 25 U. S. C. § 1301 (2). Because, here, we are concerned with the extent of tribes' inherent authority, and not with the jurisdiction statutorily conferred on them by Congress, the relevant distinction, as we implicitly acknowledged in Strate , is between members and…”
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978) scotus · cites it 2× “" 25 U. S. C. § 1301 (2). [9] In Fisher , we held that a state court did not have jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding in which all parties were members of an Indian tribe and residents of the reservation.”
Window Rock Unified School District v. Reeves (2017) ca9 · cites it 4× “193, 196 (2004) (citing 25 U.S.C. § 1301 (2)), and it has authorized tribal courts “to ‘exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction’ over certain domestic violence offenses committed by a non-Indian against an Indian,” United States v.”
United States v. Bryant (2016) scotus · cites it 2× “Bryant’s tribal-court convictions, it is undisputed, were valid when entered.”
Brackeen v. Haaland (2021) ca5 · cites it 2× “2001) (citing 25 U.S.C. § 1301 (2)). That statute was challenged in Lara as exceeding Congress’s authority.”
United States v. Lara (2004) scotus · cites it 16× “Compare 25 U. S. C. § 1301 (2) with Duro v. Reina, 495 U.”
Show all 251 citing cases →
— 25 U.S.C. § 1301(1) — 1 case
Seneca Constitutional Rights Organization v. George (1972) nywd
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.