Opinion ID: 185506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Federal Indian Law

Text: 6 Determining tribal jurisdiction is far from straightforward and involves delicate questions involving state and tribal sovereignty. Indeed, state-tribal relations have been a concern since the time of the founding. See The Federalist No. 42 (Madison) (What description of Indians are to be deemed members of a State, is not yet settled, and has been a question of frequent perplexity and contention in the federal councils.). Under principles of federal Indian law, Indian country denotes the geographic scope where primary jurisdiction ... rests with the Federal Government and the Indian tribe inhabiting it, and not with the States. Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. 520, 527 n.1 (1998). Indian country is defined by statute as all land within the limits of any Indian reservation, all dependent Indian communities, and all Indian allotments. 18 U.S.C. 1151 (2001). Although this definition by its terms relates only to federal criminal jurisdiction, [the Supreme Court has] recognized that it also generally applies to questions of civil jurisdiction such as the one at issue here. Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. at 527 (citing DeCoteau v. District County Court for Tenth Judicial Dist., 420 U.S. 425, 427 n.2 (1975)). Thus, unlike typical political boundaries, the jurisdictional boundaries of Indian tribes are not always clearly delineated, and often are determined through adjudication or other administrative proceedings. See, e.g., id. at 534; Tribal Authority Rule, 40 C.F.R. pt. 49, 63 Fed. Reg. 7254 (Feb. 12, 1998). 7 [T]he test for determining whether land is Indian country does not turn upon whether that land is denominated 'trust land' or 'reservation.' Rather, we ask whether the area has been 'validly set apart for the use of the Indians as such, under the superintendence of the Government.'  Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505, 511 (1991) (quoting United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634, 648-49 (1978)). Difficult jurisdictional questions can arise over lands that do not meet the prima facie test for Indian country. Claims of superintendence can be controversial for lands that tribes claim to be dependent Indian communities, where title is not held by the federal government or Indians, e.g. Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. at 525-27, or lands outside the exterior boundaries of formally-established reservations such as lands taken into trust for tribes pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465 (2000)), for which no action was taken by treaty, Executive Order, or act of Congress to set the lands aside for the use and benefit of a tribe. 8 It is against this background that EPA adopted its new Part 71 rules providing for federal administration of an operating permits program in Indian country.