Opinion ID: 1793077
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cabazon Test

Text: Indian tribes retain attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territor[ies]. California v. Cabazon Band of Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 207, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987) (quoting United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 557, 95 S.Ct. 710, 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975)). The tribes' sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the Federal Government, not the States. Id. at 207, 107 S.Ct. 1083 (quoting Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 154, 100 S.Ct. 2069, 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980)). However, when Congress expressly grants to a state the subject-matter jurisdiction to do so, a state may enforce state laws when those laws are violated by enrolled tribal members on the tribal reservation. See id. at 207, 107 S.Ct. 1083. In Section 2(a) of Public Law 280, Congress expressly granted to Minnesota jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country    to the same extent that such State or Territory has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State or Territory, and the criminal laws of such State or Territory shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State or Territory. IndiansCriminal Offenses and Civil CausesState Jurisdiction, Pub.L. No. 83-280, 67 Stat. 588 (1953) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a) (1994)). [1] Congress granted this jurisdiction to Minnesota in an effort to combat lawlessness on certain Indian reservations, and the absence of adequate tribal institutions for law enforcement.  Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373, 379, 96 S.Ct. 2102, 48 L.Ed.2d 710 (1976). Specifically, this grant of jurisdiction was based on Congress' finding that, on many reservations, there was a hiatus in law-enforcement authority that could best be remedied by conferring criminal jurisdiction on States   . H.R.Rep. No. 83-848, at 5-6 (1953). In Cabazon, the United States Supreme Court defined the parameters of Public Law 280's jurisdictional grant, thereby clarifying which state laws Public Law 280 states have subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce when those laws are violated by enrolled tribal members on the tribal reservation. [2] The Court held in Cabazon that California, like other Public Law 280 states, was granted subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce its criminal laws when violations of those laws are committed by or against Indians within [] Indian country. Id. at 207, 107 S.Ct. 1083. The Court then adopted the following test for determining whether a state law is criminal and thus enforceable against Indians in Indian country: [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 at issue, subject to regulation, it must be classified as civil/regulatory and Pub.L. 280 does not authorize its enforcement on an Indian reservation. The shorthand test is whether the conduct at issue violates the State's public policy. Id. at 209, 107 S.Ct. 1083. In adopting this test, the Court noted that the test does not present a bright line rule and that strong arguments can often be made on both sides that a given law is either criminal/prohibitory or civil/regulatory. See id. at 210, 107 S.Ct. 1083. We acknowledged this point when we said in Stone that the Cabazon test admits of some ambiguity. Stone, 572 N.W.2d at 729.