U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 38— INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE SUPPORT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— DISCLAIMERS

25 U.S.C. § 3631

Tribal authority

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to—(1) encroach upon or diminish in any way the inherent sovereign authority of each tribal government to determine the role of the tribal justice system within the tribal government or to enact and enforce tribal laws;(2) diminish in any way the authority of tribal governments to appoint personnel;(3) impair the rights of each tribal government to determine the nature of its own legal system or the appointment of authority within the tribal government;(4) alter in any way any tribal traditional dispute resolution forum;(5) imply that any tribal justice system is an instrumentality of the United States; or(6) diminish the trust responsibility of the United States to Indian tribal governments and tribal justice systems of such governments.(Pub. L. 103–176, title III, § 301, Dec. 3, 1993, 107 Stat. 2009.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1998–2011 · leading case: Adams v. Comm'n on Appellate Court Appointments, 254 P.3d 367 (Ariz. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adams v. Comm'n on Appellate Court Appointments, 254 P.3d 367 (Ariz. 2011). “See 25 U.S.C. § 3631 (2006) (recognizing inherent sovereign authority of each tribal government’s judiciary); Penn v.”
Adams v. Com'n on Appellate Ct. Appointments, 254 P.3d 367 (Ariz. 2011). “See 25 U.S.C. § 3631 (2006) (recognizing inherent sovereign authority of each tribal government's judiciary); Penn v.”
MacArthur v. San Juan Cnty., 391 F. Supp. 2d 895 (D. Utah 2005). “, 25 U.S.C.A. § 3631 (2001); 25 U.S.C.A. § 3665 (2001).”
Montana v. Gilham, 133 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1998). “The tribes derive their adjudicatory power not from Article III, but from their inherent sovereignty as the aboriginal people of this continent, from the vestiges of their once absolute authority over their internal affairs.”
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.