Opinion ID: 1232435
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Jurisdiction of Indian Tribes

Text: Indian tribes have historically been regarded as distinct, sovereign political entities, subject only to the plenary authority of Congress. See generally F. COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW 232-33 (1982). In Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall articulated the foundation for the principle that tribal sovereignty over its territory and people, and federal protection of the tribes, combine to eliminate state jurisdiction: The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties and with the acts of congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States. 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 561, 8 L.Ed. 483 (1832). Thus, although a tribe may be within the geographical boundaries of a state, the tribe is jurisdictionally distinct from the state, and the state has no authority to impose its laws on the reservation. [12] In several more recent decisions, the United States Supreme Court has held that the 1868 Navajo Treaty precludes extension of state law to Indians residing on the Navajo reservation. See McClanahan v. State Tax Comm'n of Arizona, 411 U.S. 164, 93 S.Ct. 1257, 36 L.Ed.2d 129 (1973); Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, 380 U.S. 685, 85 S.Ct. 1242, 14 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965); Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959). In McClanahan, the Court acknowledged that the state has no civil or criminal jurisdiction on the reservation absent some affirmative delegation by Congress and pursuant to tribal consent. 411 U.S. at 177-80, 93 S.Ct. at 1265-67. In accordance with the principles that limit state jurisdiction over Indian Country, various courts have invalidated states' attempts to reach Indians residing on the reservation. Thus, in the area of extradition it has been held that control of the extradition process is inherent in the tribal sovereignty of the Navajo Nation, and therefore a state may not arrest an Indian located on the Navajo reservation, but rather must seek extradition through the Navajo courts. Arizona ex rel. Merrill v. Turtle, 413 F.2d 683 (9th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1003, 90 S.Ct. 551, 24 L.Ed.2d 494 (1970); see also Benally v. Marcum, 89 N.M. 463, 553 P.2d 1270 (1976); A.R.S. § 13-3869 (allowing extradition of persons to and from an Indian reservation only if both the Indian tribal governing body and the state have mutually entered into an extradition compact, and providing that the state shall comply with tribal extradition law). The jurisdiction of state courts has been similarly circumscribed in the area of civil process. State officials may not enforce valid state court judgments against Indians residing on the reservation. See, e.g., Joe v. Marcum, 621 F.2d 358 (10th Cir.1980); Begay v. Roberts, 167 Ariz. 375, 807 P.2d 1111 (1990), rev. denied April 22, 1991 (state court has no jurisdiction to garnish a tribal member's wages, earned on the reservation, where tribal law does not permit garnishment of wages); Annis v. Dewey County Bank, 335 F. Supp. 133 (D.S.D. 1971) (state officials may not enforce state judgment by attaching property located on Cheyenne River Sioux reservation). This court has held that state officers lack authority to serve process on Indians residing on the reservation. Francisco v. Arizona, 113 Ariz. 427, 556 P.2d 1 (1976). Automobile dealers must comply with tribal law when repossessing automobiles on a reservation. Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 710 F.2d 587 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926, 104 S.Ct. 1707, 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984). From the foregoing, it is obvious that Arizona courts lack jurisdiction to compel a Navajo witness located on the Navajo reservation to testify in a state court criminal proceeding without resort to the provisions of the Uniform Act. The Uniform Act is only operative where the other jurisdiction has enacted reciprocal legislation, as the Navajo Nation has done here. Therefore, if we decline to recognize the Navajo Nation for purposes of our Uniform Act, we would undercut the process of efficient law enforcement in our own state proceedings by rendering a significant number of people potentially unavailable as witnesses. The Navajo Nation has nearly 200,000 members on a reservation that consists of more than fifteen million acres, about two-thirds of which is within the geographical boundaries of Arizona. We would do violence to the legislative purpose that prompted the adoption of the Uniform Act were we to exclude the Navajo Nation from recognition, thereby allowing material witnesses to evade testifying in our courts, or those of the Navajo Nation. The close proximity of our respective jurisdictions favors recognizing valid enactments of the Navajo Nation that do not conflict with our own public policy.