Opinion ID: 1442397
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legislative History and Intent of Section 1360

Text: Public Law number 280, of which section 1360 is part, was enacted by Congress in 1953 (67 Stat. 588) during an assimilationist period. It grants both civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian country to six designated states, including California, and permits other states the option of assuming similar jurisdiction. The primary focus of the legislative history of Public Law number 280 is on section 2 (codified in 18 U.S.C. § 1162), which grants criminal jurisdiction. House Indian Affairs Subcommittee member Wesley D'Ewart cited as the impetus for Public Law number 280, [t]he complete breakdown of law and order on some reservations.... (Hearings Before the House Subcom. on Indian Affairs on H.R. No. 459, H.R. No. 3235, & H.R. No. 3624, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., ser. 11, at p. 14 (1952).) The lack of attention to the civil jurisdiction provision, Public Law number 280, section 4 (codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1360), has led one commentator to conclude that such jurisdiction was an afterthought ... added because it comported with the pro-assimilationist drift of federal policy.... (Goldberg, Public Law 280: The Limits of State Jurisdiction Over Reservation Indians (1975) 22 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 535, 543 (hereafter Goldberg).) Little legislative history concerning section 1360(b) exists. (See Heffle v. State (Alaska 1981) 633 P.2d 264, 268, fn. 5.) What is known is that Public Law number 280 passed despite considerable opposition from Indian organizations, which feared state jurisdiction would in practice operate to the disadvantage of the Indians. The Indians in many instances preferred federal to state jurisdiction because the [Bureau of Indian Affairs], for all its faults, at least perceived the Indians as its special responsibility and concern. (Goldberg, supra, 22 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. at p. 545.) Perhaps because of this opposition, Public Law number 280, in its final form, represented an attempt at compromise between wholly abandoning the Indians to the states and maintaining them as federally protected wards, subject only to federal or tribal jurisdiction. ( Id. at p. 537.) Section 1360(b) is central to that compromise, and may be read as simply a reaffirmation of the existing reservation Indian-Federal Government relationship in all respects save the conferral of state-court jurisdiction to adjudicate private civil causes of action involving Indians. ( Bryan v. Itasca County (1976) 426 U.S. 373, 391 [48 L.Ed.2d 710, 722-723, 96 S.Ct. 2102] (hereafter Bryan ).) This reaffirmation of the existing reservation Indian-Federal Government relationship was accomplished by excepting from the grant of jurisdiction to the states any power to legislate on, or adjudicate matters pertaining to, land held by the United States in trust for the Indians. Thus, the exclusion of the states from acts leading to the alienation, encumbrance or taxation of Indian land has been construed to prohibit application of local zoning ordinances to such land ( Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings County (9th Cir.1975) 532 F.2d 655) and taxation of individual Indian reservation dwellings ( Bryan, supra, 426 U.S. 373). Because Public Law number 280 was passed at the same time as various Termination Acts cited above, they are to be read in pari materia. ( Menominee Tribe v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 404, 411 [20 L.Ed.2d 697, 702, 88 S.Ct. 1705].) The enactment of the Termination Acts makes it clear that Congress knew well how to express its intent directly when that intent was to subject reservation Indians to the full sweep of state laws and state taxation, and Public Law number 280 was plainly not intended for that purpose. ( Bryan, supra, 426 U.S. at p. 389 [48 L.Ed.2d at p. 721].) (4) Section 1360(b)'s jurisdictional bar should also be read in conjunction with the grant of federal jurisdiction to adjudicate Indian allotment claims (25 U.S.C. §§ 345-346), which the United States Supreme Court has interpreted as exclusive of state court jurisdiction. ( McKay v. Kalyton (1907) 204 U.S. 458 [51 L.Ed. 566, 27 S.Ct. 346].) Both 28 United States Code section 1360(b) and 25 United States Code sections 345-346 embody the principle that the exclusive federal-Indian trust relationship is best maintained by channelling all disputes about such land into federal court.