25 U.S.C. § 232

Jurisdiction of New York State over offenses committed on reservations within State

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

The State of New York shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations within the State of New York to the same extent as the courts of the State have jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State as defined by the laws of the State: Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall be construed to deprive any Indian tribe, band, or community, or members thereof,11 So in original. Probably should be followed by “of”. hunting and fishing rights as guaranteed them by agreement, treaty, or custom, nor require them to obtain State fish and game licenses for the exercise of such rights.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: United States v. Burns

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Burns (1989) nynd · cites it 10× “Defendants also claim that Congress has ceded exclusive criminal jurisdiction over Indian country in the State of New York to the state, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 232 , thus divesting the United States of jurisdiction over the charges.”

Bess v. Spitzer (2006) nyed · cites it 10× “Justice Ceresia held that (1) the plaintiff lacked standing to sue under the Fort Albany Treaty of 1664; (2) the plaintiff failed to join the Shinnecock tribe as a necessary party; (3) pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 232 , the State of New York has concurrent jurisdiction with the…”

Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation (1979) scotus · cites it 2× “1224 , 25 U. S. C. § 232 (New York), 64 Stat. 845 , 25 U.”

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022) scotus “1224 ( 25 U. S. C. § 232 ) (New York); Act of June 30, 1948, ch.”

Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (1974) scotus · cites it 2× “1224 , 25 U. S. C. § 232 . In addition, in 1950 civil disputes between Indians or between Indians and others were placed within the jurisdiction of the state courts "to the same extent as the courts of the State shall have jurisdiction in other civil actions and proceedings, as…”

Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (1994) ca1 “We think it is sensible to compare the jurisdictional grant embedded in the Settlement Act with the jurisdictional grants encased in two other Indian claims settlement acts that were to some extent modeled after the Settlement Act.”

Williams v. Lee (1959) scotus “846 , 25 U. S. C. §§ 232 , 233 (1952) (granting broad civil and criminal jurisdiction to New York); 18 U.”

Dalton v. Pataki (2004) nyappdiv · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs observe that 25 USC §§ 232 and 233 grant New York criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indian lands and suggest that this authority extends to gaming activities on Indian lands.”

Bowen v. Doyle (1995) nywd · cites it 2× “1989), the court explained: The grant of civil and criminal authority to New York in 25 U.S.C. §§ 232 and 233 is very similar [to] that which was granted to a number of western states in Public Law 280, 18 U.”

United States v. Cook (1991) ca2 · cites it 4× “Appellants maintained that 25 U.S.C. § 232 (1988) granted exclusive prosecutorial jurisdiction to the State of New York, 'precluding the federal prosecutions in their cases.”

Montoya v. Bolack (1962) nm · cites it 2× “1224 , 25 U.S.C.A. § 232 ; Act of Sept. 13, 1950, ch.”

People v. Snyder (1988) nycountyct · cites it 3× “The People counter that just such express authorization has been granted through acts of Congress passed in 1948 (62 US Stat 1224, 25 USC § 232 ) and 1950 (64 US Stat 845, 25 USC § 233 ) granting this State jurisdiction over, respectively, criminal and civil matters arising on…”

Show all 26 citing cases →

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.