U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 15— CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF INDIANS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ACTIONS

25 U.S.C. § 1321

Assumption by State of criminal jurisdiction

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Consent of United States(1) In general

The consent of the United States is hereby given to any State not having jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country situated within such State to assume, with the consent of the Indian tribe occupying the particular Indian country or part thereof which could be affected by such assumption, such measure of jurisdiction over any or all of such offenses committed within such Indian country or any part thereof as may be determined by such State to the same extent that such State has jurisdiction over any such offense committed elsewhere within the State, and the criminal laws of such State shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country or part thereof as they have elsewhere within that State.

(2) Concurrent jurisdiction

At the request of an Indian tribe, and after consultation with and consent by the Attorney General, the United States shall accept concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute violations of sections 1152 and 1153 of title 18 within the Indian country of the Indian tribe.

(b) Alienation, encumbrance, taxation, and use of property; hunting, trapping, or fishing

Nothing in this section shall authorize the alienation, encumbrance, or taxation of any real or personal property, including water rights, belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States; or shall authorize regulation of the use of such property in a manner inconsistent with any Federal treaty, agreement, or statute or with any regulation made pursuant thereto; or shall deprive any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community of any right, privilege, or immunity afforded under Federal treaty, agreement, or statute with respect to hunting, trapping, or fishing or the control, licensing, or regulation thereof.

(Pub. L. 90–284, title IV, § 401, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 78; Pub. L. 111–211, title II, § 221(a), July 29, 2010, 124 Stat. 2271.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–211 substituted “Assumption by State of criminal jurisdiction” for “Assumption by State” in section catchline, inserted subsec. (a) heading, inserted par. (1) designation and heading, and added par. (2). Amendment to section catchline was executed as the probable intent of Congress, notwithstanding directory language which erroneously directed the amendment to subsec. (a).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 137 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. 629 (2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. 629 (2022). · cites it 7× “§1162 ; 25 U. S. C. §1321 . Castro-Huerta contends that the law’s enactment in 1953 would have been pointless surplusage if States already had concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.”
McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020). · cites it 2× “25 U. S. C. §§1321 (a), 1326. Finally, Congress has sometimes expressly expanded state criminal jurisdiction in targeted bills addressing spe- cific States.”
Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463 (1979). · cites it 5× “In any event, it is indisputable that the statute does not unambiguously authorize assertion of partial jurisdiction.”
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). · cites it 2× “See 25 U. S. C. §§ 1321 , 1322; 28 U. S. C. § 1360 .”
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng'g, P. C., 467 U.S. 138 (1984). · cites it 4× “78 -80, codified at 25 U. S. C. §§ 1321 , 1322, 1326. Even before North Dakota moved to amend its Constitution and assume full jurisdiction under Pub.”
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng'g, P. C., 476 U.S. 877 (1986). · cites it 4× “78 -80, codified at 25 U. S. C. §§ 1321 , 1322, 1326. As this Court explained in Three Tribes I: "Even before North Dakota moved to amend its Constitution and assume full jurisdiction under Pub.”
State v. Spears, 662 A.2d 80 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 6× “S.C. 1326) ... the reservation of the Tribe is declared to be Indian country subject to State jurisdiction to the maximum extent provided in title IY of such Act [ 25 U.”
Murphy v. Royal, 875 F.3d 896 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “at 537-38; see 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321 (a), 1322(a), 1326. Oklahoma chose not to use Public Law 280 to assert jurisdiction.”
New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324 (1983). · cites it 3× “§ 1162 (b); 25 U. S. C. §§ 1321 (b), 1322(b), to undertake and regulate economic activity within the reservation, Merrion, 455 U.”
Lewis v. Sac & Fox Tribe of Oklahoma Hous. Auth., 896 P.2d 503 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 4× “Assumption by State of civil jurisdiction (a) Consent of United States; force and effect of civil laws The consent of the United States is hereby given to any State not having jurisdiction over civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties which arise in…”
State v. Spears, 647 A.2d 1054 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 22× “This statute refers to portions of Title IY of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321 through 1326. The dispute in the present case concerns the impact of 25 U.”
State v. Sebastian, 701 A.2d 13 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 6× “First, he claims that the provisions of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 15 that set forth the process by which a state may assume jurisdiction over criminal offenses by or against “Indians” in “Indian country”; see 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321 (a), 1326; 16 are *126 applicable to him…”
Show all 137 citing cases →
— 25 U.S.C. § 1321(a) — 1 case
State of Minnesota v. Todd Jeremy Thompson (Minn. Ct. App. 2026).
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.