Oklahomans, what just happened?

[Yung]

Something about a recent SCOTUS decision and it is something between Native American rights and functionally destroying the state.

I need to do some studying for a written test I am taking in a couple hours, so I can't go back to this thread until later this evening but I'd like to hear from you guys specifically.

[RoyGBiv]

I'm on the South side of the Red River, but....

SCOTUS just gave Tulsa (and much more) back to the Creek (and other) Nation. I read this morning that an estimated 1,700 criminals would potentially have to be released, having been tried in US courts for crimes committed on (newly affirmed) tribal lands. Unable to find that link, sorry.


(https://www.npr.org/2020/07/09/889562040/supreme-court-rules-that-about-half-of-oklahoma-is-indian-land)Supreme Court rules Oklahoma state prosecutors cannot handle criminal cases in tribal land (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-rules-criminal-cases-from-historical-tribal-land-can-cannot-be-handled-by-oklahoma-state-prosecutors)

Supreme Court Rules That About Half Of Oklahoma Is Native American Land (https://www.npr.org/2020/07/09/889562040/supreme-court-rules-that-about-half-of-oklahoma-is-indian-land)

[Arbninftry]

I live in NE Ok. This is really bad. So basically Everything now becomes a federal crime on Indian lands. A fair amount of the state is tribal by origin- you know we are the Indian Territory. So it’s a double edged sword. State does not have to prosecute, up to the Feds.

So along with that, you get to go to federal prison for something that normally does not get federal prison.

[blues]

Won't matter. Once the police are defunded the courts would be superfluous.

Perhaps trial by gauntlet or fire might be looked into if the federal prosecutors are too busy on more pressing political matters.


(indeed, sarcasm intended.)

[Arbninftry]

My thinking is that this will only apply if you are tribal. The narrative states "That means Native American people who commit crimes on that land can only be prosecuted by tribal or federal courts."

So welcome to the backlog, don't screw up and do stupid shit.

https://ktul.com/news/local/mcgirt-v-oklahoma-could-have-lasting-implications

This will also effect Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, etc.

[Borderland]

Here's a good discussion about this.

https://youtu.be/VR42iYGtEAc


Looks like congress didn't make it clear where the res was after the 1906 treaty. According to the SC, the treaty with res boundary, is still in force and that was the reason for the SC decision.

They state that congress will have to clear this up and I'm sure this will impact lots of legal, (or illegal, however you wish to look at it) original land title transfers from the US land office to private citizens. The US gov't may have actually sold land to private individuals when they never owned it to begin with. An old rule of title transfers is you can't sell something you don't own.

Just my professional opinion but nobody asked me.:D

[0ddl0t]

I'm sure this will impact lots of legal, (or illegal, however you wish to look at it) original land title transfers from the US land office to private citizens. The US gov't may have actually sold land to private individuals when they never owned it to begin with. An old rule of title transfers is you can't sell something you don't own.

Adverse possession may come into play if the lawful owners did not do enough to recover their property within the statutory time limits.

[Arbninftry]

Here's a good discussion about this.

https://youtu.be/VR42iYGtEAc


Looks like congress didn't make it clear where the res was after the 1906 treaty. According to the SC, the treaty with res boundary, is still in force and that was the reason for the SC decision.

They state that congress will have to clear this up and I'm sure this will impact lots of legal, (or illegal, however you wish to look at it) original land title transfers from the US land office to private citizens. The US gov't may have actually sold land to private individuals when they never owned it to begin with. An old rule of title transfers is you can't sell something you don't own.

Just my professional opinion but nobody asked me.:D

So I live about 5 miles from where my great (x4) grandfathers original plot (80 Acres), from 1832. When a tribal member sold to an individual, it had to be blessed my the tribe and a judge from the government. That went on to the 1900s, so I dont think the land sales will be the issue. I think it will be jurisdiction for criminal activity prosecution issue for tribal members.

[Stephanie B]

So they stole the land but they didn't do it properly?

[blues]

So they stole the land but they didn't do it properly?

Don't make blanket judgments.

(BTW, I agree that Native Americans were treated horribly and treaties weren't honored. But if we're going back, every group stole the land (they later occupied) from some other group. Native Americans displaced other tribes regularly, Native African tribes did the same. I don't know who was here when the Asians crossed the land bridge to North America...but you can be sure someone wasn't happy about the new neighbors. And so it goes.)

[Stephanie B]

Don't make blanket judgments.

(BTW, I agree that Native Americans were treated horribly and treaties weren't honored. But if we're going back, every group stole the land (they later occupied) from some other group. Native Americans displaced other tribes regularly, Native African tribes did the same. I don't know who was here when the Asians crossed the land bridge to North America...but you can be sure someone wasn't happy about the new neighbors. And so it goes.)

Poul Andersen once wrote, in The Grey Prince, that title to every parcel of real estate derived from an act of violence, more or less remote, and that title to the parcels was only as valid as the strength and will required to maintain it.

(See, eg, Kelo v. City of New London.)

[Arbninftry]

Don't make blanket judgments.

(BTW, I agree that Native Americans were treated horribly and treaties weren't honored. But if we're going back, every group stole the land (they later occupied) from some other group. Native Americans displaced other tribes regularly, Native African tribes did the same. I don't know who was here when the Asians crossed the land bridge to North America...but you can be sure someone wasn't happy about the new neighbors. And so it goes.)

It so Ironic at the tribal christmas party they always give out blankets, no lie......wtf

[blues]

It so Ironic at the tribal christmas party they always give out blankets, no lie......wtf

Maybe it's a way of keeping the memory alive. Then again, despite the evil that was done to them, I guess a blanket is still a pretty useful item.

[Borderland]

Adverse possession may come into play if the lawful owners did not do enough to recover their property within the statutory time limits.

Tribal sovereignty is a mixed bag. Adverse possession can't work against the state here. I don't think this is a simple case of adverse possession because it involves a sovereign nation. Congress will likely have to decide this. It may be that the land never legally passed out of ownership of the tribes. In that case there is no claim because the tribes are the only legal owners of the land since the treaty.

Like I said, you can't sell something you don't own.

[olstyn]

Like I said, you can't sell something you don't own.

That may be true, but it's also pretty tough to boot somebody off of a piece of land that has been in their family's physical and legal possession for > 100 years, and which their ancestors bought legally as far as they were aware. If you're going to take it away from them, it would not be unreasonable of them to expect compensation in some form.

[Stephanie B]

Adverse possession may come into play if the lawful owners did not do enough to recover their property within the statutory time limits.

Adverse possession generally cannot be asserted against sovereign entities.

[blues]

That may be true, but it's also pretty tough to boot somebody off of a piece of land that has been in their family's physical and legal possession for > 100 years, and which their ancestors bought legally as far as they were aware. If you're going to take it away from them, it would not be unreasonable of them to expect compensation in some form.

If AOC and her friends take control of congress and the White House, eminent domain and redistribution may be the least of it. Hopefully we won't see that in any of our lifetimes.

[Borderland]

That may be true, but it's also pretty tough to boot somebody off of a piece of land that has been in their family's physical and legal possession for > 100 years, and which their ancestors bought legally as far as they were aware. If you're going to take it away from them, it would not be unreasonable of them to expect compensation in some form.

Those may be the operative words here. I'm not saying anyone should be booted off of anything.

Legal ownership and compensation are two different matters. A lease is a form of that. Whoever is occupying and using the land may be entitled to compensation because of something the fed did but that may not be grounds for legal ownership passed thru title if the sale wasn't legal to begin with. Treaties along with boundaries as determined in those treaties are binding unless there are other documents that the nations signed to indicate otherwise. This isn't a matter of me claiming that I now own 100' strip of land that I've used for 20 years that I don't have deeded title to which is what adverse possession is.

There has been some sales of tribal land by the tribes to oil companies, but I believe it is now illegal for tribes to sell tribal land by an act of congress. What happens now is 100 year leases of tribal land. Some of those just expired about 20 miles from me on a nearby reservation. The tribe didn't renew the leases and the structures built by the lease holders were demolished.

As I understand it, there are negotiations in progress in congress right now to come to some terms with the nations in question over the that land in OK. The SC didn't just discover this error of the federal gov't selling treaty land to the public. My guess is some sort of resolution will be reached but congress will be making the decision and not the courts. Treaties are by act of congress, not the courts. The SC doesn't want anything to do with this and they can walk away if they want and have in the past.

Here is a little know example of how tribal lands can be illegally appropriated by the fed and eventually returned to the tribe thru a congressional act. So that might happen here.

https://www.crit-nsn.gov/crit_contents/news/080305.shtml

Can you imagine the calamity when the banks find out they can't reposes your house if you don't pay your mortgage. It will make the great OK land rush look like a Sunday walk in the park.

https://i.ibb.co/5xRtZxk/OK-land.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

[vcdgrips]

Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t

"Adverse possession may come into play if the lawful owners did not do enough to recover their property within the statutory time limits."


Oddlot

What are the factors under OK law for adverse possession?

What are the statutory time limits for an adverse possession action under OK?

Does it change if the opposing party is the state or fed or tribal govt?

What is the effect of the title previously resting in the hands of the United States vis a vis the general prohibition against adverse possession claims against the US?

What is the effect of the title now apparently resting in the hands of said tribes before the US pre treaty and/or today?



My point is simple- State your qualifications to talk about OK/Fed property law in general and and the intricacies of adverse possession actions regarding 3 separate sovereigns of over at least 3 separate time frames or STFU.


Cue the tape...crickets and owl sounds now.

[blues]

vcdgrips strikes again...

https://i.etsystatic.com/6662347/r/il/43f735/1903296334/il_570xN.1903296334_sl0j.jpg


:cool:

[Grey]

vcdgrips strikes again...

https://i.etsystatic.com/6662347/r/il/43f735/1903296334/il_570xN.1903296334_sl0j.jpg


:cool:

Why a different hammer just doesn't come down is beyond me...

[Arbninftry]

Check Fire!! Check Fire!!

I think you guys are missing the point. Borderland Stephanie B this is not about returning land to someone. This is about who enforces what laws. This all came from someone that was convicted of murder by the state, and then filed an appeal that the state had no authority to arrest him, because it happened on Tribal land. So he is trying to get the conviction thrown out. Which is what will happen now. So now the Feds have to prosecute him. This is not going to be about returning land to a tribe. That will never happen.

[Stephanie B]

Check Fire!! Check Fire!!

I think you guys are missing the point. Borderland Stephanie B this is not about returning land to someone. This is about who enforces what laws. This all came from someone that was convicted of murder by the state, and then filed an appeal that the state had no authority to arrest him, because it happened on Tribal land. So he is trying to get the conviction thrown out. Which is what will happen now. So now the Feds have to prosecute him. This is not going to be about returning land to a tribe. That will never happen.

I answered a comment about adverse possession.

Don't bet on it.

[Arbninftry]

I answered a comment about adverse possession.

Don't bet on it.

I understand,

I just wanted everyone to know the background on why the SC did this case in the first place.

[Borderland]

Check Fire!! Check Fire!!

I think you guys are missing the point. Borderland Stephanie B this is not about returning land to someone. This is about who enforces what laws. This all came from someone that was convicted of murder by the state, and then filed an appeal that the state had no authority to arrest him, because it happened on Tribal land. So he is trying to get the conviction thrown out. Which is what will happen now. So now the Feds have to prosecute him. This is not going to be about returning land to a tribe. That will never happen.

I wouldn't take that bet.

[Arbninftry]

I wouldn't take that bet.

I wouldn’t either, he will end in a federal prison. But he obviously is going to jail, now it’s just a matter of where and who convicts him.

[Borderland]

I answered a comment about adverse possession.

Don't bet on it.

Correct. The case wasn't about land ownership and the SC didn't determine anything regarding that. They just based their decision on a map of the treaty reservation.

Nothing to get excited about.....yet.

If the OK tribes ever have an NFL football team will they be the White Skins or Claim Jumpers? :D

[TC215]

vcdgrips

I know there is an act that allows the prosecution of state crimes in federal court if the crimes occurred on federal property...I don’t think that it’s used often (I’ve only been part of one case where we did that).

Would that work on tribal land?

[Arbninftry]

vcdgrips

I know there is an act that allows the prosecution of state crimes in federal court if the crimes occurred on federal property...I don’t think that it’s used often (I’ve only been part of one case where we did that).

Would that work on tribal land?

Your guess is as good as anyone's, in this day and age who knows? I would think, logically, yes, but I am not a lawyer.

[TheNewbie]

Don't make blanket judgments.

(BTW, I agree that Native Americans were treated horribly and treaties weren't honored. But if we're going back, every group stole the land (they later occupied) from some other group. Native Americans displaced other tribes regularly, Native African tribes did the same. I don't know who was here when the Asians crossed the land bridge to North America...but you can be sure someone wasn't happy about the new neighbors. And so it goes.)

Humans will be humans, whatever their shade or origin.

[vcdgrips]

I do not work in a district that has tribal lands. I am completely outside of my lane on those issues.

I had an indian law class in law school 25 + years ago and that has been it. We do training on those issues on a yearly basis at our national training center but those slots fill up with attys who work in districts that have tribal lands in them such that I have never been able to take the training when I otherwise had the time/inclination.


I do know there are separate laws/policies that pertain depending on who the defendant is (native or not),who the victim is (native or not) and whether the crime occurred on tribal lands or not.

Separate and apart from the Indian/Native/Tribal/Tribal Lands Question, there are federal statutes that typically cover crimes that would be considered "state" crime i.e. assault, robbery, burglary, rape, murder when they occur on federal land.

[BehindBlueI's]

This all came from someone that was convicted of murder by the state

Point of order:

Child rape, not murder.

[Arbninftry]

Point of order:

Child rape, not murder.

I stand corrected

[rcbusmc24]

Point of order:

Child rape, not murder.

This wouldn't' be a issue if we had just shot him once he was convicted...... as someone convicted of child rape should be.

[BehindBlueI's]

This wouldn't' be a issue if we had just shot him once he was convicted...... as someone convicted of child rape should be.

I firmly believe the death penalty is under-utilized, so you're preaching to the choir.

[HCM]

vcdgrips

I know there is an act that allows the prosecution of state crimes in federal court if the crimes occurred on federal property...I don’t think that it’s used often (I’ve only been part of one case where we did that).

Would that work on tribal land?

The assimilation statute. I don't think so, that is normally for the "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." There are statutes specific to "Indians" and "Indian Country" and technically Indian nations are sovereign to one degree or another. I think 18 USC 1152/1153 applies rather than 18 USC 13.

Chuck Whitlock

The thing with statutes is they are like having all the unfitted parts to build a 1911, you've only got the kit. Think of vcdgrips Et Al. as a "Jason Burtons." That said, here are some starting points:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13

18 U.S. Code § 13.Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction


(a)Whoever within or upon any of the places now existing or hereafter reserved or acquired as provided in section 7 of this title, or on, above, or below any portion of the territorial sea of the United States not within the jurisdiction of any State, Commonwealth, territory, possession, or district is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State, Territory, Possession, or District in which such place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time of such act or omission, shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment.
(b)
(1)Subject to paragraph (2) and for purposes of subsection (a) of this section, that which may or shall be imposed through judicial or administrative action under the law of a State, territory, possession, or district, for a conviction for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a drug or alcohol, shall be considered to be a punishment provided by that law. Any limitation on the right or privilege to operate a motor vehicle imposed under this subsection shall apply only to the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
(2)
(A)In addition to any term of imprisonment provided for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a drug or alcohol imposed under the law of a State, territory, possession, or district, the punishment for such an offense under this section shall include an additional term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year, or if serious bodily injury of a minor is caused, not more than 5 years, or if death of a minor is caused, not more than 10 years, and an additional fine under this title, or both, if—
(i)a minor (other than the offender) was present in the motor vehicle when the offense was committed; and
(ii)the law of the State, territory, possession, or district in which the offense occurred does not provide an additional term of imprisonment under the circumstances described in clause (i).
(B)For the purposes of subparagraph (A), the term “minor” means a person less than 18 years of age.
(c)Whenever any waters of the territorial sea of the United States lie outside the territory of any State, Commonwealth, territory, possession, or district, such waters (including the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil below, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected thereon) shall be deemed, for purposes of subsection (a), to lie within the area of the State, Commonwealth, territory, possession, or district that it would lie within if the boundaries of such State, Commonwealth, territory, possession, or district were extended seaward to the outer limit of the territorial sea of the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7

18 U.S. Code § 7.Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined


The term “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”, as used in this title, includes:
(1)The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
(2)Any vessel registered, licensed, or enrolled under the laws of the United States, and being on a voyage upon the waters of any of the Great Lakes, or any of the waters connecting them, or upon the Saint Lawrence River where the same constitutes the International Boundary Line.
(3)Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
(4)Any island, rock, or key containing deposits of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be considered as appertaining to the United States.
(5)Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State, Territory, district, or possession thereof, while such aircraft is in flight over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
(6)Any vehicle used or designed for flight or navigation in space and on the registry of the United States pursuant to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies and the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, while that vehicle is in flight, which is from the moment when all external doors are closed on Earth following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened on Earth for disembarkation or in the case of a forced landing, until the competent authorities take over the responsibility for the vehicle and for persons and property aboard.
(7)Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States.
(8)To the extent permitted by international law, any foreign vessel during a voyage having a scheduled departure from or arrival in the United States with respect to an offense committed by or against a national of the United States.
(9)With respect to offenses committed by or against a national of the United States as that term is used in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act—
(A)the premises of United States diplomatic, consular, military or other United States Government missions or entities in foreign States, including the buildings, parts of buildings, and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used for purposes of those missions or entities, irrespective of ownership; and
(B)residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for purposes of those missions or entities or used by United States personnel assigned to those missions or entities.
Nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to supersede any treaty or international agreement with which this paragraph conflicts. This paragraph does not apply with respect to an offense committed by a person described in section 3261(a) of this title.

Statutes specific to "Indians" and "Indian Country"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-53

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 53—INDIANS


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1151

18 U.S. Code § 1151.Indian country defined


Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title, the term “Indian country”, as used in this chapter, means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.


18 U.S. Code § 1152.Laws governing

Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, except the District of Columbia, shall extend to the Indian country.

This section shall not extend to offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian, nor to any Indian committing any offense in the Indian country who has been punished by the local law of the tribe, or to any case where, by treaty stipulations, the exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses is or may be secured to the Indian tribes respectively.


18 U.S. Code § 1153.Offenses committed within Indian country

(a)Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, a felony under chapter 109A, incest, a felony assault under section 113, an assault against an individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, felony child abuse or neglect, arson, burglary, robbery, and a felony under section 661 of this title within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
(b)Any offense referred to in subsection (a) of this section that is not defined and punished by Federal law in force within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in which such offense was committed as are in force at the time of such offense.


18 U.S. Code § 1162.State jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the Indian country
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Each of the States or Territories listed in the following table shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country listed opposite the name of the State or Territory to the same extent that such State or Territory has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State or Territory, and the criminal laws of such State or Territory shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State or Territory:
State or Territory of

Indian country affected

Alaska

All Indian country within the State, except that on Annette Islands, the Metlakatla Indian community may exercise jurisdiction over offenses committed by Indians in the same manner in which such jurisdiction may be exercised by Indian tribes in Indian country over which State jurisdiction has not been extended.

California

All Indian country within the State.

Minnesota

All Indian country within the State, except the Red Lake Reservation.

Nebraska

All Indian country within the State.

Oregon

All Indian country within the State, except the Warm Springs Reservation.

Wisconsin

All Indian country within the State.

(b)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.
(c)The provisions of sections 1152 and 1153 of this chapter shall not be applicable within the areas of Indian country listed in subsection (a) of this section as areas over which the several States have exclusive jurisdiction.
(d)Notwithstanding subsection (c), at the request of an Indian tribe, and after consultation with and consent by the Attorney General—
(1)sections 1152 and 1153 shall apply in the areas of the Indian country of the Indian tribe; and
(2)jurisdiction over those areas shall be concurrent among the Federal Government, State governments, and, where applicable, tribal governments.

[Chuck Whitlock]

vcdgrips

I know there is an act that allows the prosecution of state crimes in federal court if the crimes occurred on federal property...I don’t think that it’s used often (I’ve only been part of one case where we did that).

Would that work on tribal land?



The assimilation statute. I don't think so, that is normally for the "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." There are statutes specific to "Indians" and "Indian Country" and technically Indian nations are sovereign to one degree or another. I think 18 USC 1152/1153 applies rather than 18 USC 13.

Chuck Whitlock

HCM has it right...assimilation. A tribal member got 18 months in Club Fed for assaulting me and a BIA officer during an arrest. The part with me was prosecuted under assimilation.





I do know there are separate laws/policies that pertain depending on who the defendant is (native or not),who the victim is (native or not) and whether the crime occurred on tribal lands or not.

Separate and apart from the Indian/Native/Tribal/Tribal Lands Question, there are federal statutes that typically cover crimes that would be considered "state" crime i.e. assault, robbery, burglary, rape, murder when they occur on federal land.

Vcd's first paragraph covers the facts of a case which determine whether state, tribal, or Federal law has either sole or concurrent jurisdiction. Generally, tribes have no jurisdiction over non-Natives. They were recently (within the past 6-8 years) granted some authority over non-Natives with regard to domestic violence cases under the Violence Against Women Act. This act also gave tribes the ability to incarcerate for up to three years(?). This expanded authority requires, among other things, that the tribal court judge is a member of the Bar, the defendant is provided a public defender, etc. The tribe that I worked for was already doing all of that stuff. Typically, tribal courts can only incarcerate for up to one year.

Vcd's second paragraph basically describes the Major Crimes Act, but includes aggravated assault and not just simple assault. A good friend of mine who recently retired from the FBI spend most of his career investigating violent crimes in Indian Country.

[vcdgrips]

Working Indian Country cases is a federal specialty unto its own. For both agents/officers and the prosecutors.

[TC215]

HCM has it right...assimilation. A tribal member got 18 months in Club Fed for assaulting me and a BIA officer during an arrest. The part with me was prosecuted under assimilation.

Yep, that’s it.

We prosecuted a state vehicular manslaughter charge in federal court since it occurred on VA property.

[Chuck Whitlock]

To expand a bit..a hypothetical:

A guy commits an armed robbery of a convenience store located on a Rez. Jurisdiction is based on status (Native or not) of actor(s) and victim(s). So, the answer can be different depending upon that. Say the robber/store owner/clerk are all non-Native. State law governs, as if the reservation didn't exist, except that the Feds have concurrent jurisdiction under Major Crimes Act. If all parties are Native, the the tribe and Feds have concurrent jurisdiction. White actor + Native victim? Federal jurisdiction only. What if the robber is white, store owner white, but clerk Native? Or switch it up however you like. Clear as mud?

[Chuck Whitlock]

Working Indian Country cases is a federal specialty unto its own. For both agents/officers and the prosecutors.

Sometimes the AUSA/state/tribal prosecutors get together and draw straws, or come to an agreement about who will run with a particular case.

[Chuck Whitlock]

The expanded authority under the VAWA involved domestic violence. Used to be, non-Native guy assaults his Native partner while on the Rez, Feds had sole jurisdiction. Problem was, that AUSA offices were not really set up for misdemeanor DV, and cases fell through the cracks.

[Arbninftry]

The expanded authority under the VAWA involved domestic violence. Used to be, non-Native guy assaults his Native partner while on the Rez, Feds had sole jurisdiction. Problem was, that AUSA offices were not really set up for misdemeanor DV, and cases fell through the cracks.

So basically as this stands, its a major food fight about who will do what, and its clear as mud.

Here is a question to you Chuck and the other LEs Blues, TC.....

How long will this take to become clear about who is doing what now? Will this be one of those things that takes a couple of years to work itself out? Or, take where I live in NE OK, there are more tribes up here than most parts, everyone is something, will BIA just bring in more cops to police them in rural areas instead of the County Sheriff?

[blues]

So basically as this stands, its a major food fight about who will do what, and its clear as mud.

Here is a question to you Chuck and the other LEs Blues, TC.....

How long will this take to become clear about who is doing what now? Will this be one of those things that takes a couple of years to work itself out? Or, take where I live in NE OK, there are more tribes up here than most parts, everyone is something, will BIA just bring in more cops to police them in rural areas instead of the County Sheriff?

Way outside my lane, Arbninftry. Wish I could offer some clarity.

[TheNewbie]

In Oklahoma, at least to my understanding, many agencies are cross commissioned. Allowing for full service LE.

If this only applies to “Natives”, even that will be interesting. How much blood do you need to Native. Right now it’s not much in Oklahoma.

[Chuck Whitlock]

So basically as this stands, its a major food fight about who will do what, and its clear as mud.

Here is a question to you Chuck and the other LEs Blues, TC.....

How long will this take to become clear about who is doing what now? Will this be one of those things that takes a couple of years to work itself out? Or, take where I live in NE OK, there are more tribes up here than most parts, everyone is something, will BIA just bring in more cops to police them in rural areas instead of the County Sheriff?

How long? The ink is still wet on the SCOTUS' decision. There are probably a lot of folks having a lot of meetings about the implications of this. It is my understanding that tribal land in OK has always been something of a checkerboard, so this just increases the % of the state affected. I'm guessing some expansion of tribal/BIA LE operations, but there are hiring and budgeting processes and hoops that have to be jumped. It won't be an overnight thing.

If you're not a criminal, it will probably have little effect on you. If you're a non-Native criminal, you might face Federal as well as state prosecution if you fuck up in IC. For those Natives who were convicted by the state, they might not be so happy once convicted in federal court. No such thing as parole/early release for good behavior on the Fed side.

[Arbninftry]

In Oklahoma, at least to my understanding, many agencies are cross commissioned. Allowing for full service LE.

If this only applies to “Natives”, even that will be interesting. How much blood do you need to Native. Right now it’s not much in Oklahoma.

Varies by tribe for tribal benefits, the Cherokees have one standard (because they have so many). Other Tribes, have a there own requirements. Some go off of Lineage. My Grandmother was full, but our tribe lost its tribal affiliation and was disbanded federally in the 70s, we got folded into another tribe for a while. We dropped under 300, but got it back in the 80s when we got our numbers back up, and now we have 3-4k members. But that is just the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma. So every tribe is different.

[TheNewbie]

Many, if not all, tribes have their own LE in OK.

[Arbninftry]

Many, if not all, tribes have their own LE in OK.

Yes they do, and it’s crazy sometimes with all the different tribes here. 9 tribes in one county plus the Cherokees on the south side of the Neosho River

[Wyoming Shooter]

For many years, I worked as a prosecutor in Fremont County, WY. Our county includes the Wind River Indian Reservation. The fundamental question of whether a reservation has been "diminished" turns on many factors - legal and factual. The consequences of this determination are enormous and go far beyond criminal jurisdiction. Tribes have
some civil, regulatory, and taxation powers over non-Indians in "Indian country". Think about that.

Here is a case I prosecuted in which the defendant claimed Riverton, WY to be "Indian country": https://law.justia.com/cases/wyoming/supreme-court/2008/451186.html.

Congress would do well to sort this out as the Tribe now holds a winning hand.

[pangloss]

I'm curious about how this ruling will affect taxation. Does the state of Oklahoma have the authority to tax reservation lands? Does it have the authority to regulate/tax intrastate commerce carried out on reservation lands?

[Wyoming Shooter]

I'm curious about how this ruling will affect taxation. Does the state of Oklahoma have the authority to tax reservation lands? Does it have the authority to regulate/tax intrastate commerce carried out on reservation lands?
Generally, no. States have very limited authority to tax and/or regulate Indians and Indian tribes within Indian country. This can be seen in the form of tribal casinos operating on Indian country within states that do not permit gaming.

[pangloss]

Generally, no. States have very limited authority to tax and/or regulate Indians and Indian tribes within Indian country. This can be seen in the form of tribal casinos operating on Indian country within states that do not permit gaming.

Sounds like this will be a really big mess. The tribes and the state can pledge cooperation all they want, but when people start counting dollars, you can bet that some of that cooperation will go out the window.

[Arbninftry]

I'm curious about how this ruling will affect taxation. Does the state of Oklahoma have the authority to tax reservation lands? Does it have the authority to regulate/tax intrastate commerce carried out on reservation lands?


Generally, no. States have very limited authority to tax and/or regulate Indians and Indian tribes within Indian country. This can be seen in the form of tribal casinos operating on Indian country within states that do not permit gaming.


So, here is the catch, at least for here in Oklahoma. Every tribe can tax and issues their own license plate. Now when my ex wife and I were out at Ft. Huachuaca in 2002, she kept getting pulled over. The police officer that was doing that was pissed because he said they were fake, because he could not check them on his data base when he ran the plates. Eventually we went to the city and filed a complaint. They had to call the state of Oklahoma to find out WTH was going on. Basically the state they are legit, and it is not a problem to find out if they are legit, you just have to call the tribe on the registration. Now currently, most of the tribes over the years have got on board with the state system and keep it up to date, except for a few hold out tribes. Mine is one of them, and one of the two Shawnee tribes, I know for sure and maybe a couple of the others are not on board.

I expect the autonomy of the tribes will worsen as they grow bolder. Every tribe has their own income stream, the casinos. I guess they will get the blood money back, one way or another.

Also, this state just expanded medicare here. They are in an 8 billion dollar deficit, and are in a court battle with the tribes on the taxes they get to collect form the casinos. I fear this state will feel major pain over this ruling. The Governor has already stated if the SQ802 passed state services will be cut.

I am a social worker, currently, the state has already before this passed, cut about half of our offices permanently. With the economy in the tank, this state will suffer even more before its all over with.

[Borderland]

So, here is the catch, at least for here in Oklahoma. Every tribe can tax and issues their own license plate. Now when my ex wife and I were out at Ft. Huachuaca in 2002, she kept getting pulled over. The police officer that was doing that was pissed because he said they were fake, because he could not check them on his data base when he ran the plates. Eventually we went to the city and filed a complaint. They had to call the state of Oklahoma to find out WTH was going on. Basically the state they are legit, and it is not a problem to find out if they are legit, you just have to call the tribe on the registration. Now currently, most of the tribes over the years have got on board with the state system and keep it up to date, except for a few hold out tribes. Mine is one of them, and one of the two Shawnee tribes, I know for sure and maybe a couple of the others are not on board.

I expect the autonomy of the tribes will worsen as they grow bolder. Every tribe has their own income stream, the casinos. I guess they will get the blood money back, one way or another.

Also, this state just expanded medicare here. They are in an 8 billion dollar deficit, and are in a court battle with the tribes on the taxes they get to collect form the casinos. I fear this state will feel major pain over this ruling. The Governor has already stated if the SQ802 passed state services will be cut.

I am a social worker, currently, the state has already before this passed, cut about half of our offices permanently. With the economy in the tank, this state will suffer even more before its all over with.

One county here took a tribe to court for not collecting sales tax on items sold in a mall on tribal land. The county lost the law suit.

[TGS]

What impact does this have on other states?

Would another state be a better hypothetical example for us to parse out these impacts? It sounds like Oklahoma is complex.

Signed,

Somebody-that-don't-know-nothin-other-than-the-idea-of-BIA-police-having-a-greater-presence-scares-me

[Yung]

About ten other states on the west half of the country I think.

[Borderland]

About ten other states on the west half of the country I think.

It was a federal case and I was wrong about the tribe winning that case. The state did.

Here's the story. Not sure if it was appealed. State and county were defendants.


https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-says-tulalips-must-collect-state-county-sales-tax/

[Arbninftry]

It was a federal case and I was wrong about the tribe winning that case. The state did.

Here's the story. Not sure if it was appealed. State and county were defendants.


https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-says-tulalips-must-collect-state-county-sales-tax/

I have been thinking out loud... How will this affect other states with tribal communities that are not as set as they are here?

Also, TGS I agree 100% about the BIA police officer, and the Tribal Police all out running amuck now. This could get really weird on jurisdiction, and the level of fuddery. Not saying all of them are FUDDs, because they have some squared away dudes. But there still is some that are cops in the tribe because the Tribal Chief said so.

[Caballoflaco]

Another interesting question is going to be ccw, since afiak it’s illegal for non Indians to carry on Indian land.

[olstyn]

Another interesting question is going to be ccw, since afiak it’s illegal for non Indians to carry on Indian land.

I presume this is based on the idea that tribes = sovereign nations? If so, do no state or federal laws apply inside tribal borders?

[Arbninftry]

Now we are bordering on another thread. If Groups No Longer Recognize the Legitimacy of the Law...

Yes, this will/can get fuzzy quick. All I know, is my CHL is recognized in so many states, and as long as I don't walk into a building that has a No guns sign, I don't think anyone should worry about it. Because you can always argue, it was all Indian land at one time or another, but now we are the United States, from sea to shining sea.

I still remember AIM before it was in a movie or two. But that was mainly up north in the Dakotas. Down here you would see them at tribal gatherings. But I also remember seeing the Randy Weaver selling his book at the big Tulsa gun show when I was a kid.

There will always be those that have their own agenda. The things that bring us together as a nation are being blurred. Is this all a coincidence?

[Caballoflaco]

I presume this is based on the idea that tribes = sovereign nations? If so, do no state or federal laws apply inside tribal borders?

Yes. My understanding is state laws do not apply to tribal land, that’s why casinos are a thing. I’m not sure what federal laws apply because my research on the matter was planning some future rides out west, but since states issue ccw permits the general consensus of my Internet research was that there were no Indian lands that honored state issued ccw.

ETA: there are some Tribes that do allow carry with a state license. This website gives a general overview of tribes who have a written policy. As noted though it may be out of date.

https://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/tribal_law_ccw.pdf

ETA: and the Muscogee creek do recognize state permits according to the link.

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry and conceal on or about his person any firearm, pistol, rifle or other deadly weapon whether loaded or unloaded. Provided, that this section will not be applicable to law enforcement officers and security guards duly authorized or certified to carry arms or persons issued a valid Concealed Weapons Permit or licensed by another Indian Tribe, state or the federal government in accordance with the provisions of MCNCA Title 16, § 4–114. Provided, nothing in this section shall authorize a carrier of a Concealed Weapons Permit or license to carry weapons into gaming establishments, said authorization which is governed by MCNCA Title

[Joe S]

Another interesting question is going to be ccw, since afiak it’s illegal for non Indians to carry on Indian land.

My silly non-lawyer brain would think that made it de facto legal, since state laws don't apply, and federal doesn't mention it, unless tribal law specifically mentions it.

[ST911]

Another interesting question is going to be ccw, since afiak it’s illegal for non Indians to carry on Indian land.


I presume this is based on the idea that tribes = sovereign nations? If so, do no state or federal laws apply inside tribal borders?


Yes. My understanding is state laws do not apply to tribal land, that’s why casinos are a thing. I’m not sure what federal laws apply because my research on the matter was planning some future rides out west, but since states issue ccw permits the general consensus of my Internet research was that there were no Indian lands that honored state issued ccw.

Some of this was referenced indirectly via statute and discussion earlier, but the nutshell topical to CCW- Tribes don't have criminal jurisdiction over non-indians. Some tribal and regulatory provisions may not even apply to indians who aren't members of that tribe. State law coexists for non-indians in indian country. A tribe can bar people from its lands, and that would be the most likely enforcement mechanism were one to be applied. Therefore, if you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the tribe, and no applicable federal codes exist governing your act, state law prevails.

Subdivisions of state government (cities, counties, townships, special regulatory districts) also overlap tribal territories in many places and operate according to state law when jurisdiction applies.

A tribal officer who is cross credentialed to enforce state or overlapping county or municipal codes can apply law by circumstance, but only to whoever is subject to its jurisdiction.

The whole "sovereign nation" thing isn't the thing people think it is.

[Half Moon]

I presume this is based on the idea that tribes = sovereign nations? If so, do no state or federal laws apply inside tribal borders?

It gets complicated. Federal always applies (except sometimes congress has exempted the tribes explicitly from federal legislation, for instance the ADA). While they are recognized as sovereign nations, under case law going way back, the tribes are also considered wards of the federal government (which is why certain contracts for instance require approval by one federal entity or another). They must comply with federal law and the feds have enforcement power on tribal land. As a generality , states have no jurisdiction on tribal lands ( except where they do, for instance - some gaming compacts, on a tribe by tribe basis, have ceded certain jurisdiction to a given state). Essentially think of it as visiting another state with its own laws, etc.

Edited to add: and to go with what ST1911 said above: some tribes have worked deals for instance with the neighboring Sheriff's office to cross-commission Tribal Police as reserve deputies to give them enforcement power over non- tribal members. Circumstances vary tribe by tribe.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Some of this was referenced indirectly via statute and discussion earlier, but the nutshell topical to CCW- Tribes don't have criminal jurisdiction over non-indians. Some tribal and regulatory provisions may not even apply to indians who aren't members of that tribe. State law coexists for non-indians in indian country. A tribe can bar people from its lands, and that would be the most likely enforcement mechanism were one to be applied. Therefore, if you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the tribe, and no applicable federal codes exist governing your act, state law prevails.

Subdivisions of state government (cities, counties, townships, special regulatory districts) also overlap tribal territories in many places and operate according to state law when jurisdiction applies.

A tribal officer who is cross credentialed to enforce state or overlapping county or municipal codes can apply law by circumstance, but only to whoever is subject to its jurisdiction.

The whole "sovereign nation" thing isn't the thing people think it is.

Quoted for truth.




Edited to add: and to go with what ST1911 said above: some tribes have worked deals for instance with the neighboring Sheriff's office to cross-commission Tribal Police as reserve deputies to give them enforcement power over non- tribal members. Circumstances vary tribe by tribe.

And state-by-state. I was cross-commissioned with the State of Nebraska. In NE, entities that are not the State, or political subdivisions thereof, could not commission LE. My commission was as a Special State Deputy Sheriff, and administered through the NSP. This was also the mechanism for University of Nebraska police officers, cattle rangers, etc.

[Caballoflaco]

The Legal Brief did a YouTube video on the ccw topic I just found. His run down is basically what some more research on my part, including asking a Tribal Officer on another non gun forum I’m a member of. He also brought up that yeah, depending on who your dealing with they could possibly confiscate your guns and detain you and take their time, maybe a day or more, verifying if you’re a member of the tribe or not. (That was a worst case scenario)


https://youtu.be/pMflgCE4EBI

[Warped Mindless]

Don't make blanket judgments.

(BTW, I agree that Native Americans were treated horribly and treaties weren't honored. But if we're going back, every group stole the land (they later occupied) from some other group. Native Americans displaced other tribes regularly, Native African tribes did the same. I don't know who was here when the Asians crossed the land bridge to North America...but you can be sure someone wasn't happy about the new neighbors. And so it goes.)

Let me preface this by saying im half Native American.

You are 100% correct.

Many people seem to believe that NA tribes were a bunch of hippes who lived in harmony with nature and all loved one another. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Borderland]

For many years, I worked as a prosecutor in Fremont County, WY. Our county includes the Wind River Indian Reservation. The fundamental question of whether a reservation has been "diminished" turns on many factors - legal and factual. The consequences of this determination are enormous and go far beyond criminal jurisdiction. Tribes have
some civil, regulatory, and taxation powers over non-Indians in "Indian country". Think about that.

Here is a case I prosecuted in which the defendant claimed Riverton, WY to be "Indian country": https://law.justia.com/cases/wyoming/supreme-court/2008/451186.html.

Congress would do well to sort this out as the Tribe now holds a winning hand.

I'm not holding out a lot of hope that congress will do much of anything. There are some other very serious problems that congress should have dealt with by now but haven't. There is just too much partisan divide these days to come to an agreement on anything. When there is major legislation coming from the house and the senate won't even vote on it for fear it might pass, you know you're in deep kimchi.

Might be that non-Native Americans in OK might all be in the YOYO tribe now.

Added. I just read that link. It's loaded with information about treaties and how some tribes "renegotiated" away some treaty land. I'm not sure exactly how this plays out regarding the recent SC decision. Seems the tribes may still have some rights to those lands.