25 U.S.C. § 1324
Amendment of State constitutions or statutes to remove legal impediment; effective date
Notwithstanding the provisions of any enabling Act for the admission of a State, the consent of the United States is hereby given to the people of any State to amend, where necessary, their State constitution or existing statutes, as the case may be, to remove any legal impediment to the assumption of civil or criminal jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter. The provisions of this subchapter shall not become effective with respect to such assumption of jurisdiction by any such State until the people thereof have appropriately amended their State constitution or statutes, as the case may be.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2022 · leading case: Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. 629 (2022).
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. 629 (2022). “79 ( 25 U. S. C. § 1324 ). In doing so, however, Congress emphasized that affected States could not assume jurisdiction to prosecute offenses by or against tribal members on tribal lands until they “appropriately amended their State constitution or statutes.”
Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463 (1979). “25 U. S. C. § 1324 . We do not rely on the 1968 legislation or its history, finding the latter equivocal, and mindful that the issues in this case are to be determined in accord with legislation enacted by Congress in 1953.”
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng'g, P. C., 467 U.S. 138 (1984). “590 , codified, as amended, at 25 U. S. C. § 1324 . Section 7 provided similar federal consent to any other State not having civil and criminal jurisdiction, but required such States to assume jurisdiction through "affirmative legislative action.”
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 (1973). “§ 1322 (a) grants the consent of the United States to States wishing to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over reservation Indians, and 25 U. S. C. § 1324 confers upon the States the right to disregard enabling acts which limit their authority over such Indians.”
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Mont. v. Moe, 392 F. Supp. 1297 (D. Mont. 1975). “§ 1322 (a) grants the consent of the United States to States wishing to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over reservation Indians, and 25 U.S.C. § 1324 confers upon the States the right to disregard enabling acts which limit their authority over such Indians.”
Francisco v. State, 556 P.2d 1 (Ariz. 1976). “§ 1322 (a) grants the consent of the United States to States *431 wishing to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over reservation Indians, and 25 U.S.C. § 1324 confers upon the States the right to disregard enabling acts which limit their authority over such Indians.”
United States v. Super. Ct. in & for Maricopa Cty., 697 P.2d 658 (Ariz. 1985). “Public Law 280 provides as follows: Notwithstanding the provisions of any enabling Act for the admission of a State, the consent of the United States is hereby given to the people of any State to amend, where necessary, their State constitution or existing statutes, as the case…”
Ahboah v. Hous. Auth. of the Kiowa Tribe of Indians, 660 P.2d 625 (Okla. 1983). “25 U.S.C. § 1324 . 25 . Id. 26 . Oklahoma was included in the disclaimer state classification on the basis of its Enabling Act, Act of June 16, 1906, 34 Stat.”
Wauneka v. Campbell, 526 P.2d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). “§ 1322(a)] grants the consent of the United States to States wishing to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over reservation Indians, and 25 U.S.C. § 1324 [25 USCS § 1324, 25 U.S.”
Jim v. CIT Fin. Servs. Corp., 527 P.2d 1222 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974). “But the Act expressly provides that the State must act `with the consent of the tribe occupying the particular Indian country,' 25 U.”
State Ex Rel. May v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, 711 P.2d 77 (Okla. 1986). “590 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1324 [1982]). Counsel for the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs stated at PL-280 hearings that "[n]otwithstanding the provisions of any Enabling Act” meant Congress was repealing the Enabling Act.”
The N. Cheyenne Tribe of the N. Cheyenne Indian Reservation v. Thomas Ralph Adsit, 668 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1982). “Notwithstanding the provisions of any enabling Act for the admission of a State, *1085 the consent of the United States is hereby given to the people of any State to amend, where necessary, their State constitution or existing statutes, as the case may be, to remove any legal…”
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.