day one part b pdf

Public Law 280 Training

214Analyzing PL 280

Public Law 83-280 184Enacted by Congress in 1953

PL 280 is a federal law, not a state law.

PL 280 is sometimes referred to as “Public Law 83-280”

The “83” refers to the 83rd Congress – which is the Congress who enacted

Public Law 280.

The 83rd Congress convened between Jan. 3, 1953 through Jan. 3, 1955.

218Analyzing PL 280

Public Law 280 is often read as one complete piece . . .

However, PL 280 consists of 3 distinct sections:

1) A criminal section 2) A civil section 3) Informational sections

Analyzing PL 280 223

PL 280’s 3 distinct sections:

1. Criminal Section 18 USC § 1162 Title 18 is the federal penal code.

28 USC § 1360 Title 28 is federal judicial procedure.

25 USC (six sections) Title 25 is labeled “Indians.”

1. Civil Section

1. Informational Sections

GO TO APPENDIX PAGE 346 - 349

219Title 18 United States Code

Mandatory PL 280 States

“… States…shall have jurisdiction over offenses…and the criminal laws…shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country…”

Most recent addition to PL 280

A state’s new PL 280 jurisdiction was not to alter anything protected through the early treaties or other legal obligations between the US and the Indian tribes.


Mandatory PL 280 States

“… States…shall have jurisdiction over civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indian are parties …state …civil laws…of general application to private persons or private property.”

A state’s new PL 280 jurisdiction was not to alter anything protected through the early treaties or other legal obligations between the US and the Indian tribes.


These are all informational sections having to do with federal or tribal consent and breaking down any legal issues or barriers.

25 USC (six sections) Title 25 is labeled “Indians”

225State Authority under PL 280

“[W]hen a State seeks to enforce a law within an Indian reservation under the authority of Pub. L. 280, it must be determined whether the state law is criminal in nature, and thus ful ly applicable to the reservation, or civil in nature and applicable only as it may be relevant to private civil litigation in state court.”

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 US 202, 208 (1987)


1. The State can enforce state law for criminal actions:

State jurisdiction in Indian country, under the authority of PL 280, will either be for the purpose of dealing with crime, or for dealing with private “civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties.”

2. The State opens its courts as places where private legal (non-criminal) disputes between reservation Indians and between Indians and other private citizens could be resolved:

✓ Murder ✓ Theft ✓ Kidnap ✓ Etc…

✓ Property disputes ✓ Breach of contract ✓ Personal disputes ✓ Etc…


QUESTION: Under the authority of Public Law 280 …

What is “criminal” ?

To answer this, we have to look at state Public Policy.

This is the area where legal battles have clarified PL 280’s scope of authority.


“[T]he criminal/prohibitory – civil/regulatory dichotomy was originally developed to aid in the interpretation of Public Law 280”

US v. Dakota, 796 F.2d 186 at 14(6th Cir.1986)

Civil / Regulatory

Public Policy

Criminal / Prohibitory


Civil / Regulatory

Civil = community of people, society in general

Regulatory = having to do with rules and regulations for the common good; safety concerns

Civil / Regulatory = Rules and regulation for a safe community; restrictions for the benefit of everyone, promoting the general health and welfare of society.

The bottom line is that people want to live in a community where they feel safe and secure.

230Civil / Regulatory

Video Clip: Meter Maid


Civil / Regulatory laws have some type of consequence or penalty if they are disregarded.

The enforcement of civil/regulatory laws may begin with simple warnings, which can eventually lead to large and painful fines, privileges or freedoms taken away.

City, county and state governments have ways of encouraging compliance with their civil/regulatory laws.


“Indians stand in a special relationship to the federal government from which the States are excluded unless the Congress has manifested a clear purpose …”

Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 US 373, 392 (1976)

Congress did not intend state regulatory laws to be enforced upon tribal lands.

Because of sovereignty, each tribe’s government will determine the rules and regulations governing their jurisdiction – for the common good and safety of their community.


Congress never intended a state to “be able to implement all its regulatory provisions on Indian reservations and thereby destroy the strong concept of tribal sovereignty.”

United States v. Marcyes, 557 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir.1977)

* Examples of Regulatory Laws

243Infringement Test

“Congress has … acted consistently upon the assumption that the States have no power to regulate the affairs of Indians on a reservation.”

The court case, Williams v. Lee created a balancing test . . .

243Infringement Test

“[A]bsent governing Acts of Congress, the question has always been whether the state action infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.”

Williams v. Lee, 358 US 217 (1959)

232Criminal / Prohibitory

Civil / Regulatory

Public Policy

Criminal / Prohibitory Something people are allowed to do in

accordance with the rules and regulations.Something totally prohibited;

Not allowed or tolerated in society.

Two completely separate and distinctly different sections of public policy.


Civil / Regulatory

Public Policy




Criminal = actions of a crime; activity not tolerated in society

Prohibitory = not allowed, fully restricted

Criminal / Prohibitory = What society elevates to a crime; behavior or action not allowed or tolerated in a community.


Civil / Regulatory

Public Policy




Since the enactment of PL 280 there has been much confusion about what a state considers

criminal/prohibitory vs. civil/regulatory.

234Under the Microscope

This is because everything does not fit squarely into the civil/regulatory BOX or the criminal/prohibitory BOX!

Therefore, it takes a bit more work to figure things out by looking at the law closely under a microscope.

When a law is closely examined, some laws labeled “criminal” can really be “regulatory” viewed through the lens of a state’s public policy, and vice versa.

235Splitting HairsSometimes it gets down to splitting hairs!

The Minnesota Supreme Court used these questions to determine whether an action is criminal or regulatory:

“[I]f the intent of a state law is generally to prohibit certain conduct, it falls within Pub. L. 280’s grant of criminal jurisdiction, but if the state law generally permits the conduct as issue, subject to regulation, it must be classified as civil/regulatory, and Pub. L. 280 does not authorize its enforcement on an Indian reservation.”

238Gambling (State of California)

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 US 202, 208 (1987)

The State of California and the County of Riverside sought to apply laws governing the operation of bingo games on Indian reservations.

Illegal Fireworks (State of Washington) 241

Possessing unmarked, unclassified and dangerous fireworks violated the public criminal policy of the state of Washington. Allowing this activity “would entirely circumvent Washington’s determination that the possession of fireworks is dangerous to the general welfare of its citizens.”

US v. Marcyes, 557 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir.1977)

247Accurately Applying PL 280

252Public Law 280 – Amendment (2010)


18 USC § 1162 (d) reads as follows:

(d) Notwithstanding subsection (c), at the request of an Indian tribe, and after consultation with the consent by the Attorney General – (1) Sections 1152 & 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.

The 2010 Tribal Law and Order (TOLA), Section 221 - added Section (d) to 18 USC § 1162


The new amendment to PL 280 allows a tribe to request the federal government to re-assume the federal jurisdiction it previously transferred in the requesting tribe’s Indian country.

- Does not change a State’s PL 280 jurisdiction

- Adds federal jurisdiction concurrently


Re-assumption of Concurrent Federal criminal jurisdiction

- Does not require a State’s approval

- It does require approval by the US Attorney General

- Certain factors will be considered . . .


Factors considered by the US Attorney General: - Will it improve public safety and criminal law enforcement and reduce crime?

- Will it increase law enforcement resources?

- Will it improve access to judicial resources?

- Will it improve access to detention and correctional resources?

- Weigh all comments and information by federal & state agencies, along with

tribal consultation.

* If a tribe is denied re-assumption, the tribe can submit a new request.

day one part b pdf

Documents