25 U.S.C. § 1322

Assumption by State of civil jurisdiction

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

(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 the areas of Indian country situated within such State to assume, with the consent of the tribe occupying the particular Indian country or part thereof which would be affected by such assumption, such measure of jurisdiction over any or all such civil causes of action arising 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 other civil causes of action, and those civil laws of such State that are of general application to private persons or private property shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country or part thereof as they have elsewhere within that State.

(b) Alienation, encumbrance, taxation, use, and probate of property

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 confer jurisdiction upon the State to adjudicate, in probate proceedings or otherwise, the ownership or right to possession of such property or any interest therein.

Any tribal ordinance or custom heretofore or hereafter adopted by an Indian tribe, band, or community in the exercise of any authority which it may possess shall, if not inconsistent with any applicable civil law of the State, be given full force and effect in the determination of civil causes of action pursuant to this section.

(Pub. L. 90–284, title IV, § 402, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 79.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 110 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1971–2023 · leading case: Sheppard v. Sheppard, 655 P.2d 895 (Idaho 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sheppard v. Sheppard, 655 P.2d 895 (Idaho 1982). · cites it 18× “25 U.S.C. § 1322 . We believe that any attempt to understand the interrelationship of state law and federal law vis-a-vis the Indian as an individual or as a tribe, must begin with a review of the schizoid policies of the federal government toward the Indian.”

McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 (1973). · cites it 6× “Title 25 U. S. C. § 1322 (a) grants the consent of the United States to States wishing to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over reservation Indians, and 25 U.”

Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). · cites it 2× “[20] To be sure, 25 U. S. C. § 1322 (b) and 28 U. S. C. § 1360 (b) provide that nothing in those sections "shall confer jurisdiction upon the State to adjudicate, in probate proceedings or otherwise, the ownership or right to possession of [any real or personal property,…”

Kennerly v. Dist. Court of the Ninth Jud. Dist. of Montana, 400 U.S. 423 (1971). · cites it 8× “Section 402 (a) of the Act, 25 U. S. C. § 1322 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. V), dealing with civil jurisdiction, provides: "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…”

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Mont. v. Moe, 392 F. Supp. 1297 (D. Mont. 1975). · cites it 14× “Title 25 U.S.C. § 1322 (a) grants the consent of the United States to States wishing to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over reservation Indians, and 25 U.”

Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enter., LLC, 2009 OK 6 (Okla. 2009). · cites it 5× “" See 25 U.S.C. § 1322 (a). [8] *453 ¶ 9 This Court acknowledged Oklahoma did not take steps to assume jurisdiction under the previous PL-280 in Lewis v.”

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah v. Lawrence, 22 F.4th 892 (10th Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “§ 1326 . Here, the Tribe never provided such consent.”

Kizis v. Morse Diesel Int'l, Inc., 794 A.2d 498 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 25 U.S.C. §§ 1322 , 1326 (1994). The tribe has not consented to state jurisdiction over *58 private actions involving matters that occurred on tribal land.”

Patchak v. Zinke, 138 S. Ct. 897 (2018). “See 25 U. S. C. §1322 (a) (providing that state courts, absent the consent of the tribe, may not exercise civil jurisdiction over trust land).”

Outsource Servs. Mgmt., LLC v. Nooksack Bus. Corp., 292 P.3d 147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “280, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1322 , that there is a distinction between “Indians” and “Indian tribes.”

Winer v. Penny Enter., Inc., 2004 ND 21 (N.D. 2004). · cites it 2× “"In 1968 Congress passed Public Law 90-284 [codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1322 ] requiring Indian consent to subsequent transfers of jurisdiction.”

Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States of Am., State of New Mexico, Ex Rel. S. E. Reynolds, State Eng'r, Amicus Curiae, 601 F.2d 1116 (10th Cir. 1979). · cites it 3× “Footnote 20 in Colorado River Water Conservation District, supra, is, in our view, of special application here: To be sure, 25 U.S.C. § 1322 (b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1360 (b) provide that nothing in those sections “shall confer jurisdiction upon the State to adjudicate, in probate…”

Show all 110 citing cases →

— 25 U.S.C. § 1322(a) — 2 cases

Smith Plumbing Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 720 P.2d 520 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

Wauneka v. Campbell, 526 P.2d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).

— 25 U.S.C. § 1322(b) — 1 case

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Mont. v. Moe, 392 F. Supp. 1297 (D. Mont. 1975). “Title 25 U.S.C. § 1322 (a) grants the consent of the United States to States wishing to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over reservation Indians, and 25 U.”

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.