By Dorothy Alther, CILS Legal Director
If you are a California Native American chances are you have heard of Public Law 280 (PL 280) at some point in your life. But what does PL 280 really mean to you, to your tribe, and California tribal communities? The following is a short introduction and overview of PL 280.
Some Basics. As a general matter jurisdiction on Indian reservations cross the country is confusing and complex. PL 280 adds another layer to this complexity and confusion but are some of the basics that will help with your understanding of how PL 280 fits within the jurisdictional framework in California Indian Country.
PL 280 is a federal law passed in 1953 and applies in five states: California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregan and Nebraska (commonly referred to as the “mandatory states”). Alaska was added in 1958.
There are two federal statutes that encompass PL 280: criminal jurisdiction under PL 280 is defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1162 and civil jurisdiction is defined under 28 U.S.C. § 1360.
PL 280 applies in “Indian Country” which is defined under federal law as: Indian reservations (tribal trust lands); Indian allotments (individual trust lands); and “dependent Indian communities”. (18 U.S.C. § 1151).
Tribes in the five mandatory states were not consulted with nor was tribal consent required before subjecting tribes and their members to PL 280 jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction in California “Indian Country” Before PL 280.
Prior to PL 280, crimes committed in California Indian Country against or by an Indian were prosecuted by the federal government. A tribe had exclusive criminal jurisdiction over lesser crimes if committed by an Indian. Civil cases arising in California Indian Country where one of the parties was a Native American would be heard in tribal court.
California state criminal and civil jurisdiction in Indian County was limited to cases where both parties were non-Indians. For example, the state only prosecuted a crime committed in Indian Country where both the defendant and victim were non-Indians. In civil cases, state courts only heard cases involving an act that occurred in Indian County if both the plaintiff and defendant were non- Indian.
Although confusing, the main point is that in California prior to the passage of PL 280, the state had very limited jurisdiction in Indian Country.
Jurisdiction in California “Indian Country” After PL 280.
PL 280 changed the jurisdictional rules in Indian Country for the mandatory states.
Under the criminal portion of PL 280, Congress removed two federal criminal jurisdictional statutes used by the federal government to prosecute crimes in Indian Country and in turn granted the five named states criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country. This does not mean that there are no federal criminal laws applicable in California Indian Country, but PL 280 removed the two main federal statutes specific to crimes occurring in Indian Country. Tribal criminal jurisdiction was not removed under PL 280 except for their exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians, that jurisdiction is now shared (concurrent) with the state.
On the civil side of PL 280, state jurisdiction is more limited and was designed to open the door for Native Americans to file private civil suits in state court regardless of whether the defendant is a Native American or a non-Indian and the cause of action occurred in Indian Country.
Although PL 280 opened the door for state concurrent civil jurisdiction in California Indian Country, it did not remove the door from its hinges. The civil PL 280 statute lists a number of exceptions to the state jurisdiction in Indian Country, for example there is no state jurisdiction: to tax trust lands, probate allotted lands, regulate or encumber trust lands, or determine the right to possess or ownership of trust land or property.
What PL 280 did not do:
PL 280 did not “divest” (take away) tribes criminal and civil jurisdiction. Tribes can establish their own courts, law enforcement departments and pass tribal laws enforceable on their land;
PL 280 does not allow the state to impose its civil “regulatory” laws on the reservation (i.e. environmental laws, labor laws, building or fire codes, hunting and fishing regulations, and other laws designed to regulate land use); and
PL 280 does not allow city or municipalities to impose their ordinances on the reservation.