we'll hear argument first this morning case fourteen fourteen zero six nebraska versus parker mr smith mr chief justice and may please the court for over a century the following three things have been true in the disputed area first the non indian population has always been greater than ninety eight percent second the tribe never exercised jurisdiction and third by contrast the state of nebraska has governed the disputed area the story of the disputed area is that of a land that long ago lost its indian character if it ever had  the three things i mentioned at the outset happen for a reason they happened because it was the content or the intent of congress in the context of the times of the eight hundred eighty two act that the disputed area would be diminished from the reservation if i understand your position correctly you're not asking us to overrule so room no no your honor we are not asking you to overrule solem in fact what we're asking the court to do is to imply apply the entire solon rule and in particular the compelling third factor of the subsequent circumstances of the lands jurisdictional history as i'm working it from way to get ten and from you we've diminishment but we also think this case fits within this court's precedent under solum which would involve in our view the third element of the test is particularly strong and compelling in this case while in solemne in that particular case it was it was i guess i would call fairly easy to distinguish because the solon talks about as far as the events what took place after the act the focus should be if you're looking at intent of congress you should be looking at what congress is doing after the act that is reflective of not understanding essentially that they've diminished the reservation to different congress i mean to say you know a later congress that doesn't so and therefore the earlier congress with it is accurate a particular statute must have diminished that doesn't make any you know ad adverse possession of a jurisdiction whether it's indians or or even a state that used to have jurisdiction over a particular area has forfeited by long long accepted usage to the contrary if that is true and and if the third factor is as important as you say we would need that doctrine we would just find diminishment well and that would be consistent with the concept that if a party just if they but why did lee assert a claim to having sovern authority over this as in this case it was over one hundred and some years after the land was open for settlement that there are at least a cheryl case some of the principals in that case would be supportive of de facto diminish far as a long standing assumption of jurisdiction by the state over an area of this primarily non indian in pot in population the land creates justifiable expectations and if they did have any sovereignty over it they had long since forfeited but as you know what you're arguing here i understand you're arguing diminishment adverse possession so to speak we are arguing that is no and if the court applies to solem tests the state should prevail in this case which you don't see the other side says you did not raise the city of share own argument you agree with  t we have we have a lot of the a lot of the arguments you make seem to sound more in the city of cheryl type proposition but you haven't raised an argument have you we i  believe in paragraphs or pages twenty two i think it's twenty five for brief we are at least citing cheryl as as precedent for the principle of  sovereignty loss of sovereign control by the fact that the state has long exercised the jurisdiction but what are voters of what you fill of them said cell phone did bring up we're talking about a liquor license alcoholic beverage license and a sales tax on alcoholic beverages does the state itself impose such requirements that is a li will they have to get approval for taxation correct from the federal government your point would be correct your honor the tribe has to request it they have to have an ordinance it has to be approved by agency of the federal government yes that  of the tribes on their own reservations greatly so what powers do you lutes you've already see that to the federal government criminal prosecution powers so you're not losing out on that what are you losing out of well your honor i thought i'd take this would be in the context of what are the justifiable expectations of those who live in the the area what would be significantly disrupted as far as their justifiable expectations i would start off with the first the principle is just who governs your would be introducing an additional usually at least now we don't think much of subsequent history of any kind then maybe they thought a little bit more highly of it in the days when saddam was written but now it would be it's pretty much of a stretch to use subsequent legislative history or subsequent history generally one where the on with interpret in a statute i'm just wondering is there a reason why it should be more credited here than in any other conte t the court's precedent i believe recognizes in the area of land surplus x that the indian land surplus acts are a unique animal from your normal legislative analysis and that would because in the context of the times back before the turn of i guess two centuries ago and they hundreds congress would be doing lancer plus acts in which the concept of are we diminishing or not diminishing or reservation was really nothing that congress thought you put that on the basic principle that only congress can diminish and reservation it then becomes  problem of how do we determine what congress intended when frankly the reality of the court's crested is it's something the court or congress and generally did not think of they were inconsistent and so the the soul of the test really evolved out of an attempt to determine what was the intent of congress at the time which then is why legislative history subsequent subsequent circumstances ty to govern is this still part of the reservation or not does the tribe have any authority over this area at all and if it's part of the reservation it has a acknowledged it is limited authority but it would have authority over it because if it's part of the reservation now we'll get on that question as a practical matter if the tribe were to exercise the elderly go to the outer limits of the it's a foreigner what could he do said he panther well sides opposing this this liquor tax well what it what it can do it would it can displace state jurisdiction over environmental regulations that this is a rural farming area the environment is very important state regulation is very important it's what the people have expected and i could give an example if you're a farmer and the guy across the road drops a load of manure in your pond that's being used feed cattle you call the state of nebraska you want them to come out and you want them to do something those regulations would be replaced you call the state of nebraska and the response is i'm sorry you called the wrong number of what about municipality what about self governing or more or less self governing unisa polities are are there any of those within this area yes there are self  the ambiguity of the extent of their authority versus the extent of the tribes authority you would have this and be you would be in which is going to be i mean people for one hundred  land because the tribe i'm sorry the tribe has exceeded to state sovereignty in the environment and in all sorts of things have they threatened to take away the state activities in this village not yet the issue is going to be this tribe is awfully small you think they're going to have the power to  to implement all of these things that you are fearful of it to do substitute services to it can't tax for it without the government's permission so how are they going to do all these and why would they do all these horrible things well i don't think it's i mean it's nice to have the power of taxation but they still need the government's approval i don't think it's simply the test of being what what will they do i think the issue is once they have the authority well going the question of the city of cheryl says if they try to exercise their powers in a way that's harmful to settle down expectations they might have a remedy  because of latches well if you say we've introduced a tribe with that in theory has authority but because they've never exercised it they really have no authority that that by itself i would say is the inherent in big you ambiguity of what is actually the limits of their authority you get litigations it starts disputing whether like under the montana factors as far as they could regulate conduct that threatens has some direct effect on their tribes integrity economic security health and welfare that's very very broad and  in the part of the reservation that's not at issue here yes the tribe absolutely exercises authority in the part that's not part of the reservation they've stipulated that that on the part that's not part of the reservation that  they that they are i have ordinances they provide services that they enforce their ordinances on the east in the eastern part of the railroad which is  clearly that within the tribe and not on the west so they have had no presence there and they've acknowledged that they have nope tribal offices schools industries businesses they've been added that all of these governmental services are provided by state local agencies not the tribe that's the public expectation that's what they expect is in the in the western part in the western part but what about in the eastern part i think ari and if i wasn't clear  the eastern part the tribe does have its ordinances it does provide services it doesn't force its ordinances and laws in the eastern part but not in the western part never happens all of those services are provided by the state of nebraska the state of nebraska you name it in the form of government services have been private provided by the state of nebraska it's municipalities not by the tribe this comes in we come in we're going to tax you we're going to take the money and maybe you get services maybe you don't and in fact the idea of local control is if the people in the disputed area are unhappy about what the tribe is doing unlike if it's their local city council they don't get to vote they don't get to remove him from office and stratosphere smith i can understand why people might be concerned for all the reasons that you're talking about we do have a pretty clear and settled law in this area with respect to diminishment that we've said only congress can diminish that the idea is that we're supposed to look at congressional intent and you say congress  didn't really think in these terms and there's something that's fair about that but congress did use very different language in different ones of these acts and we've looks to that language as a pretty good guide to suggest and which ones diminish and which ones do not and it seems as though the language here in in in the act in which we are concerned it it it's in none of the language that would suggest that  congress diminished this at so i was wondering if you could talk to that is there anything in the language of the statute that suggests a diminishment any of the usual kind of we see in everything leave  specifically say no particular form of words are required what we do have in this act is we've got two areas of the reservation the area west of there are reservation it's very well defined area it doesn't create a checkerboard effect what is significant is the different the act treats the area west of the railroad different than the area east of the railroad specifically and this is a major distinction in solem there is nothing reserved for the tribe in the land on the west of the road or of the disputed area there is nothing reserved for it in the bullpen so to speak there is no reservation of land use rights there is no reservation land use rights for its schools agency tribal religious purposes no reservation in mineral rights in seoul of those who are considered significant factors because what you agree that city of cheryl did nothing more than deny a particular equitable relief and did not repudiate the proposition of indian sovereignty over the land in question it because if you agree with that then i guess i'm more inclined to give greater weight to the third factor but if you disagree with it as i think you  then then then i don't see why we need the third factor well the city is cheryl it does have the element of the tribe trying to unilaterally just  it well it says the tribe doesn't have sovereignty just to buy the land back and get back sovereignty that had long ago lost it's really empathize equitable principles to say your few say to say that the tribe does not have suffered yes yes and i and i think it's perfectly reasonable for the court to reach that conclusion with a land which long ago lost its indian character long ago they've they've never any sovereignty and then show up after the public the descendants everyone who's lived there and after one hundred thirty years you suddenly find out we got it indian tribe that somehow has some governmental authority over us we've never elected them we don't have any right to vote them out of office if we don't like what we're going to do i guess we can complain to somebody but we can't recall two members of the tribal council it's it is it's a recognition that those things happens because that's what congress intended to have happen and it is solem looks in the context of the times as far as that legislative history are quite happy what happened afterwards solem emphasizes the decades immediately after the act and in the decades immediately after this act we don't have what solon talks about the rife with in consistencies what we have is a total one hundred percent consistent record that everyone understood this land was diminished it's not part of the reservation congress and eighty six years later and i understand the point about subsequent congressional intent but at least today they did not take an action that would reflect congress didn't understand what they did mr smith on the city of cheryl point the chief justice asked you before do you agree whether this was whether this is waived and you said well we cite city of cheryl on page twenty five or something like that below what was the status of the city of cheryl argument in the lower courts the in the lower courts the argue but the argument was made as far as that de facto diminishment can be found that it's circuit opinion is what i would call a some i'm not a number i'm not sure mr clemente mr chief justice in may it please the court the question in this case is whether an eight hundred eighty two act of congress diminished the omaha reservation and redrew its boundaries we think multiple considerations make clear that the act of congress did not diminish the reservation but simply opened up a portion of the reservation for settlement within the existing boundaries now the first and probably most significant factor is that the text of the statute uses the classic language this court has a fide for opening up a reservation for settlement without creating a diminishment but secondly and i think very telling and specific to this statute at the same time there is no language in the statute that supports a finding of diminishment i think there is language in the statute specifically the final proviso of section eight that is very inconsistent with the idea that what congress did is draw a new western boundary to the reservation because that that proviso gave tribal members the right to take their allotments east or west of the right of way and the record reflects that many that the number of members of the tribe took their allotments west of the right of way and importantly a number of them took their allotments that actually straddled the right of  roughly three hundred plus allotments so it was you know three percent but i think the fact that they were allowed even though they're small numbers on the trying to make a volume argument here i'm making an argument that if congress just  western boundary to the reservation it would have been very odd to allow tribal members to take their allotments off the reservation and maybe otter still to allow them to take an allotment that essentially was bisected by the new boundary why would that  congress was thinking in the main that tribal ownership or indian ownership went with the reservation status and i think again if you think of this as being a surplus land act that simply opens the reservation up a portion of it to settlement then it makes perfect sense to say the tribal members can take their allotments anywhere on the reservation but if you think you've really drawn a new boundaries to the reservation then i think it's more than passing strange that you can take allotments to the west of it allotments were generally available could take that allotment off the reservation if the union chose to do so correct no my position is oh no they couldn't and they could take it west of the right of way but i am saying  were only open to manini and no before any settlers not indians came in the existing tribal members were allowed to take their allotments and they were allowed to take their allotments anywhere on the preexisting free we're not talking about allot open to the general population are a specific and this is clear from the proviso in section eight it's the allotment only for members of the tribe and they can take consistent with the historical understanding in allotment anywhere on the reservation including west of the right of way and that seems to me to be very consistent with the idea that the right of way is an interesting thing that the tribe granted through their reservation but it's not some new boundary and i think the subsequent history really supports that as well i mean my friend on the other side what do you make  entirely different route to finding immunity and diminishment rather that doesn't go through an act of congress and i think that's the only way to read the opinion as a whole because when the court starts the opinion it says the very first principle in this area is that only congress can diminish the reservation and it's perfectly compatible with that to say that when we get to the third factor and we're looking at all sorts of things we'll look at settlement patterns as part of that but i don't think it's consistent with that worldview to then say that actually the third factor is a stand alone alternative route to find diminishment not by congressional action but by market reaction to a surplus atlanta did we say cheryl i don't really  two things that one is that solid went out of its way to not the side the diminishment issue so it's clearly an alternative way of thinking about the cases and i don't think they're coextensive which is to say i think there could be a particular assertion of tribal authority that you might say violate city of cheryl principles even within undiminished reservation and i do think it's then critically important that my friend on the other side has not raised this argument below i certainly did not understand it to be into pending argument in this court it's all well and good to cite the case but that doesn't make it an independent argument even has a meek who thought that they wanted to bring before this court the city of cheryl argument admitted that the petitioners had made a ark but but solon did talk about de facto diminishment and it seems to me that you've got to recognize when they do that they're talking about something other than your right and in their words pursuant to the law it's pursuant to the facts on the  ground i understand mr chief justice but i think there's two ways to talk about de facto versus does your it one way to talk about it is that there are two totally alternative routes another way is to say de facto diminishment means the settlement patterns and that's something that can inform the ultimate conclusion of whether there's diminishment and i really think the court in solomon was using it in that passage in the latter respect and i think that's only way to make sense of the case as a whole because it is presenting before the all of the factors starting with the first and governing principle being that only congress can diminish and he winds up the sort of general principle section with this last thing about the fact that a jury a de facto diminishment and then that ties up exactly to his discussion of settlement patterns in the third factor of solemn and i really think that's the right way to read that opinion i would like to make one other very important point here though is i think the court should understand that if you were to rule in favor of petitioners in this case the essentially have to go back and reconstruct the right of way because the railroads no longer there there's no rails for trails program in thurston county so if you take a google map and look at this area you can't even tell where the right of way was  i think that's significant because if there really was it's a contemporaneous understanding in the one nine hundred fifty s and one nine hundred sixty s when the railroad literally pulled up its tracks and left that the right of way was the boundary of the reservation and i think there would've been some effort to sort of move on to please correct me if i'm wrong for the record my understanding was that in the west portion of the tribe had done that exercise no jurisdiction until the beverage control ordinance recently but on the east  it's looking to a certain restrictions in places that are impractical so it's made a judgment that most of its efforts are directed at the eastern portion of the reservation but what i'm saying is the fact that nothing in the record of the great let's assume the record shows that the tribe pictured knows no jurisdiction over the western portion until this alcoholic beverage control or ordinance is that relevant to the case or i don't think it's dispositive i think yes it relevant yes relevant why  what point it i think it could be relevant to the third factor of solemn in a case where the situation was very cloudy but one of the things also to keep in mind is that even before montana the authority that a tr else could the try do in the way of governance in this area i think as a practical matter justice ginsburg there's two other things that are at stake here and they both go to the equities of the indians on the reservation not the non indians because the non indians on the red innervation the tribal authorities very very limited so one thing that is at issue here is the potential to continue the revenue sharing agreement with the state and this is something that the state actually came to the tribe about and the theory of the revenue sharing agreement or the fuel taxes is that there are going to be transactions in the western portion of the reservation where it's actually tribal members that are buying gasoline over there which does happen because there are a lot legal matter as a legal matter if you prevail can the drive cast any doubt on the authority in the jurisdiction of the existing municipality no not at all what they can do is they can make cooperative agreements with the state of nebraska to tax indians in when they make purchases in pender and the other thing they can do is that when two tribal members get in a scuffle in the village of pender the tribal authorities can be contacted and that matter can be handled in the tr retrocession under after public law to eighty it's not even clear to me that brassicas ceded its civil jurisdiction that it enjoyed under two eighty the retrocession as i understand it was criminal retrocession with the exception of the motor vehicle laws the second thing as a practical matter i think this is very important to understand the next town east from pender is the town of walt hill it is an ambiguously in the reservation boundaries it is an incorporated municipality of the  sort of civil government nebraska in the winnebago just educate me because i don't know the law on this point can excuse me can a state incorporate municipalities within the boundary of an indian reservation yes it can and it does and it's quite common and what this court in fact this court in in the seymour case one of its earliest diminishment cases confronted a federal township omak washington that it out has been a township there civil authority there but it's still on the reservation and that is actually quite common is that displace tribal authority in that area no because again remember the tribal authority over the nine indians is so small well we're talking about the area can tribal tribal police patrol within the municipality i think they probably could only really with an eye towards seeing if there were indians there who were you know needing patrolling and there's some evidence in the record this is a joint appendix three seventy one in three seventy two that there were occasional patrols of the tribe indeed and her there's also a footnote in that same section that says that as a practical matter when a tribal member was apprehended in the village of pender the police officer would call over to the tribal authorities and have them take over the person so there's overlapping jurisdiction the municipality in the tribe yes in the within the city within the city and one other aspect that create conflict no it really hasn't created significant conflict and it is but that is the exception that proves the rule because alcohol on reservations has been a unique federal authority for as long as there been indian reservations in fact this court had a case in one thousand eleven arising out of the omaha reservation where it reaffirmed the federal authority so indeed reservation lands i take a tribal police have jurisdiction over non unions as do minor offenses i don't think that's actually true on the ground minor criminal statute making as a minor fans the tribe have jurisdiction over than an indian i don't think that it would within the village and i think that is a reflection of the very limited authority that the tribe has over nineteen and that's true with reference to only indian tribes can you cite me any proposition well i might be it's my turn on the scope of the came mr chief justice and may have pleased the court in solemn versus bartlett this court explained that once a block of land is set aside as an indian reservation and no matter what happens to the title of individual plot within the area the entire block retains its reservation status until congress explicitly indicates otherwise it has not done so here i like to start if i may with the question what would change if this court were to that the reservation is still intact first of all with respect to services states can provide services to members of tribes and nonmembers alike anywhere within the reservation and the state of nebraska provide services not only in the disputed area but on the east side as well let me give you a very specific example there's a town called bancroft which is split in half by the right of way there's another town called rosalie which is clearly within the eastern undisputed part of the reservation there's a school district called the bancroft rosalie's school district which is administered under the auspices of the state of nebraska and that's true notwithstanding the fact that much of the land is on the east side and true notwithstanding the fact that many members many i see no basis for the state to refuse to provide services to its own citizens especially if they are not members of the tribe would be question the sovereignty the state is this is the reservation yet your argument it's the reservation and that's not the state so we're going to spend our money for schools or whatever the in the state not in the reservation the state retains regulatory sovereignty to make laws with respect to its own citizens and nonmembers on a reservation that's true on the east side it's true on the west side i think you also may be left with the impression after my friend's argument that the state would stop issuing environmental permits and all of a sudden the tribe would start issuing them that is not correct first of all the environmental protection agency has been administering on the west side of the reservation including providing permits for animal feedlots there is also a permit for wastewater environmental protection agency which state or federal federal federal including a permit for a waste water treatment facility although i believe it discharges into logan creek on the east side so it may not tell us all that much about the jurisdiction of our questions have been none tribal memory so the things that they tried could do would be any express delegation of authority from congress the only one that we've heard about is the alcohol ordinance beyond that state and tried  sharing that's right there was an agreement to share revenue if you although that was something that the state entered into voluntarily with the tribe beyond that the tribe would have to fall under one of the two montana exceptions which are as this court is very aware aware because of the dollar general case very limited i want to i suppose one reason the tribe might not provide services is because the area is ninety eight point whatever percent non tribal right i think that's absolutely correct so they would be if any services would be for the how many nine nine indians in the area or fifteen pardon how many non indians own land in the western part it's almost entirely non indian in the western part and exception but at least as to tribal members in the where that's right tribal members on the rez it would be subject to the tribe jurisdiction which they otherwise would not i think that's accurate if i could go to the city of cheryl argument which got brought up a lot i think this case is extremely different from city of cheryl for a number of reasons but let me give you two big ones in city of cheryl this court held that principles of equity restraint the tribe from trying to resurrect a claim of inherent sovereign immunity in this case by contrast first of all we're not just talking about the tribes jurisdiction we're talking about the jurisdiction of the united states as well and second of all we're not talking about a claim of inherent authority this is authority exercised pursu  to a federal statute eighteen u s c eleven sixty one and it for that reason principles of equity simply don't apply here moreover in city of cheryl that i don't understand that trying to shore print princip we do not apply here they don't apply in the same way so in city of cheryl the court applied a latches type reasoning but latches would not apply to prevent the exercise of authority under a federal statute and express delegation of authority under federal law  because that's what the court said for instance in the copyright decision that justice ginsburg recently wrote which is that when you have background principles of equity they are presumed not to be apply and be displaced when there is a substantive law that congress passes to deal with the same law that authorized the imposition of these taxes in the in the western part of the reservation the law authorizes the exercise of this authority if there is a reservation and if the tribe applies to the department of the interior which has to approve the orden it wasn't that big of the question the question is whether or not this reservation has been diminished so that's not the reservation that's the question with respect to the application of the statute but when we're talking about city of cheryl we're talking about background equitable principles and i'm simply making the point that those principles don't apply when you have an express congressional statute dealing with the same issue if the city  city of sheryl did apply hypothetically i'm not and they say all the differences you're pointing out which you lose no because again in line we're not talking about just what the tribe can do we're also talking about the jurisdiction of the united states as well and there's certainly nothing in the city of cheryl which suggests that the jurisdiction of the united states pursuant to a congressional creation of a reservation can be curtailed by the tribes failure to exercise authority in the disputed rightly i'm more i'm more inclined to vote your way if the city of cheryl doesn't apply then if the city of cheryl doesn't apply well what you're land as their own that's what you're telling me right well i'm telling you that to the extent city of cheryl applies it applies to a very different question not the question as to where the borders of the reservation are it applies to the question what can the tribe the area anymore again the diminishment question goes not just to the tribes sovereignty but the jurisdiction as well of the united states and if we're talking about expectations another point that i would make is that the single best evidence of what these parties could have expected is the retrocession because that was a unique moment in which the state of nebraska and the united states talked directly in officially to one another about the burdens and responsibilities for exercising jurisdiction in the reservation and the united states in the federal register as official as can be said the entire reservation remains intact and the state of nebraska as we point out in our brief had exactly the same understanding the assistant attorney general for nebraska came in testified before congress that all of thurston county is within the winnebago and within the omaha reservation that determines the meaning of the eight hundred eighty two statute not in the least it goes to the that's what i think i was simply responding to the point that the expectations here might be all in the same direction i would also point to thirty years of nebraska revenue rulings all of which say point blank pender is still part of the reservation i would also point to the definition of  i would also like to address if i could the tipping point theory that i think a merges from petitioner's reply brief and that's the idea that in eight hundred seventy two congress tried but failed to diminish the reservation because there were only about three hundred acres sold but in eighteen eighty two it succeeded because a lot more land was sold i think there are a lot of problems with this theory first of all if that was what congress had in mind presumably it would have specified some way to know when the tipping point had been reached some percentage of land sales some other measure of success there's nothing about that in the text there's nothing about that in the legislative history second of all the concept that congress could attempt but failed to diminish reservation as my friend said that it did in eight hundred seventy two is a concept that is wholly foreign to this court's jurisprudence which makes clear that congress has plenary power and finally i think this court should be very reluctant to assume that congress implicitly transferred any part of its authority to change the borders of an indian reservation to private parties and made it contingent on what this court in dakota referred to as uncertain future sales well is that saying there's no such thing as de facto diminishment i think that de facto diminishment if you think of it as some sort of freestanding alternative path to change the boundaries of a reservation i do agree that it doesn't exist but if you're talking about it how is that consistent with the language and so in that justice ginsburg read i think it's a little bit hard to know exactly what the court meant this court has never found a factor diminishment all seven of its surplus land cases were decided on the basis of congressional intent and then there were sometimes  sentences thrown in about how the status quo wouldn't change very much i want to leave you with one more point what about cheryl martin what about cheryl cheryl is very explicit that it is not a diminishment ruling there's a footnote in city of sheryl which makes very clear that it it is not deciding to diminishment issue or the jurisdiction of the united slip puts vague about the language where non indian settlers flooded into the open portion of a reservation and the area has long since lost its indian character we have acknowledged that they facto if not the jury diminishment may have occurred i think you have to read that sentence in light of yankton sue which says that when you're talking about the subsequent treatment of the area and the pattern of settlement those are relevant only in so far as they bear on the touchstone of the inquiry which is congressional intent if i really want to get a look at the passage it goes on then to discuss in addition to that then we look to subsequent demographic history as an additional clue as to what congressman i i read those  the two different paragraphs is making two different points i think you could definitely read it that way if you just had solemn i think if you read solomon in light of the unconsumed you reach a different result if i could make one final point about unsettling expectations there are more than three hundred federally recognize indian reservations all throughout the united states the single most unsettling thing that this court could do would be to suggest that the borders of those reservations depend not on what congress said about them but on shifting demographic patterns or who provides what services where if there are no further questions thank you  sixteen j a three eighteen to g a three nineteen j a six o nine two j a six eleven the the concept that does nothing really to change having the tribal police show up in their police vehicles patrolling the streets because it's on tribal land is going be a huge disruption of expectations my background is in criminal law i know if you have a crime you're investigating you don't know not all crimes are you know there's not a sign saying gee this was committed by an indian this was committed by not an indian you have a lot of whodunits in which the question is who's supposed to investigate you have this overlapping jurisdiction where law enforcement itself is confused as to who's supposed to be investigating when they don't even know maybe who the perpetrator is the idea that a tribal member of a state governmental authority is somehow or shows skill that he wouldn't wouldn't  be the case with respect to any municipality that's within a reservation we've been told there are a lot of those and wouldn't that would not be a problem in all of those and i know they believe that you  overlapping jurisdiction of tribal police and municipal police and until you know who the perpetrator is you don't know which one has jurisdiction it's a problem if you do know and chose to live on an indian reservation i mean that exists what's different in this case is the history is of hundred thirty years of people who believe and chose and they are not living on an indian reservation they're living in the state or depressed i call the state patrol i don't know the tribal police are not patrolling up and down my street that's the difference it's the justifiable expectations of the people who live there their point is the government says fine make that argument make it under the rubric city of cheryl maybe make it when you go down and on remand or something but it is workable to divide the issue into two parts the first issue is what reservation and the second issue is what can you do on the reservation when you get to question two if the tribe is made no assertion of jurisdiction nobody even knows about it for one hundred fifty years maybe it's basically unfair to let them do what they want to do and that depends on a lot of factors such as what congress says and also what do you think of that argument let's leave it for later nobody's argued i'm glad i didn't answer what i thought of that argument  what it is still good fights the litigation over what is the extent of the power who's got the power to govern what is the extent of their power uncertainty when you have expectations you live in an area where the state governs you and then to say we can go back and litigate all these issues is that is just not what the public expects the people in  is a big deal they're care about this they have expectations it's a big deal whether a tribe tribal council has authority over us we don't get to vote for them their constitution doesn't even allow us to appear at their public meetings the concept that somehow or other we can't find the right away because it's not on google is frankly silly it's very easy to go back and