Opinion ID: 1354957
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trust Allotments as Indian Country

Text: Underlying the trial court's refusal to assume state jurisdiction is the premise that the lands in question are Indian Country as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151. The definition of Indian Country is relevant to questions of both criminal and civil jurisdiction. [18] Although the trial court did not explain the basis for its ruling that the tracts in question are Indian Country, the Tribes argue that the trial court's ruling should be upheld on the basis that the land qualifies either as an allotment or as a reservation, or both. We are persuaded that the land claimed by both Tribes is Indian Country within the meaning of an Indian Allotment under section (c) of the statute. Indian allotments were originally lands owned by individual Indians held in trust by the United States or subject to statutory restrictions on alienation. [19] The test for Indian Country is whether the land was validly set apart for the use of the Indians, as such, under the superintendence of the government, or whether the land was excepted from the portion reserved to the public domain at the time of allotment. [20] A trust allotment is Indian Country [21] and remains so irrespective of reservation boundaries. [22] An allotment restricted against alienation is Indian Country. [23] So is a portion of an original Indian allotment now held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of a tribe. [24] Although there has been some confusion regarding the allotment status of certain tribes in Indian Territory, including the Seneca and Quapaw, we entertain no doubt that the General Allotment Act applied to both tribes. [25] As tribal allotments, the lands in question  belonging to the Quapaw and Seneca-Cayuga  are Indian Country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(c). Hence we do not reach the issue whether the Quapaw and the Seneca-Cayuga lands are a reservation within the meaning of the statute. [26]