ipl-logo

Explanations Of Public Law 280

745 Words3 Pages

In short, Public Law 280 gave states the opportunity to take control of jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases that involve Indians and that have occurred within the boundaries of Indian Country. This chapter goes over the specifics that work under the general idea of this law as well as the history that influenced change to this law. Basically, Public Law 280 gave six states the power to exercise criminal and civil jurisdiction over tribes that were within their boundaries. There were two problems with this; the states brought up that they did not get extra funding that would help exercise their jurisdiction and the tribes were upset that this law allowed state jurisdiction over them without any of their consent. To solve these two complaints, …show more content…

This did apply to the same boundaries within the six states along with the grant of criminal jurisdiction. The addition of civil jurisdiction just meant that civil actions in Indian Country will be treated as it would in the state out of the areas of Indian Country. The granted civil jurisdiction does not prevent tribes’ jurisdiction if they decided to exercise the ability to do so. Still, this doesn’t affect trust properties or treaty rights, if anything; states are restricted from doing anything to either of the …show more content…

The wording of it could have varied meanings based on how it’s interpreted. The civil grant was over “civil causes of action.” (Pg. 267) This could mean states decide cases and that’s all they are limited to. Then there is another grant that allows “civil laws of State shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State.” (Pg. 267) So this could mean that they have complete legislative jurisdiction within everywhere in the state. This was made lucid from the Bryan v. Itasca County case; the outcome was that they decided that the purpose of the law was to set a state outline for resolving disputes such as in Bryan v. Itasca County. When it comes to laws and crimes, they are separated into either regulatory (civil) and prohibitory (criminal) and if they were able to be enforced in court. Public Law 280 did not allow the ability to tax personal property and water rights that belonged to Indian Country (recognized by U.S.). Again, there was confusion on what actions the states could take that won’t be considered as encumbering. Of course, hunting, trapping, fishing, and control was protected by Public Law

Open Document