Contemporary Legal and Political Issues of Indian Reservation
Indian reservations comprise land, set aside by the federal government, to be used by the Native American tribes. The primary objectives of Indian reservations were to bring the Native Americans to be controlled by the United States government. Additionally, the reservations were developed to reduce the conflict between settlers and Indians and encourage the indigenous Americans to adapt to the ways of the white man. The Indian Appropriations Act of 1851 sanctioned the development of Indian areas to what is known as Oklahoma. However, the majority of Natives were forced into reservations with catastrophic outcomes and overwhelming long –term effects. Today, there are approximately three hundred Indian reservations in the United States.
The sovereignty of Indian Reservation
The Indian reservations usually hold an exceptional place in the structure of the United States government. The federal government acknowledges the Natives Americans as being sovereign entities, which means they have the right to govern with being interfered with the outsiders. The Bureau of Indian Affairs grants the right to form their governments, to develop and enforce laws both criminal and civil, to determine and establish membership such as tribal citizenship. Additionally, the Indian reservations have the right to regulate and license several activities within their jurisdiction and exclude individuals from their tribal lands. However, they are not allowed to issue or print money, and also they cannot sell the trust land since the title of the reservations is held by the federal government. Moreover, the tribes are prohibited from involving themselves in matters of international relations like entering into an agreement with foreign nations or declaring war.
Jurisdiction of Indian Reservation
According to the federal government’s general rule, the Indian tribes are not in a position to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction to non-members. There are two exceptions to the rule of criminal jurisdiction. Firstly, Native tribes may exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-members Indians. Secondly, Native tribes may try
non- Indians who commit domestic and dating crimes against
Indians, and this is within the tribe’s jurisdiction. The Indian tribes may exercise jurisdiction to the non-members only of the congress authorizes them. Tribal criminal jurisdiction to the non-members is usually hard to discern, and such jurisdiction hugely depends on whether members who are not Indian are acknowledged as being Indians by either the federal government of the tribal community. The determination typically turns on factors such as enrollment in the tribe, the participated tribal ceremonies, and social life. For instance, in the case of Duro v. Reina, the Supreme Court stated that a tribe does not hold any authority to exercise the criminal jurisdiction to Indian criminals who are not members of the tribe.
Congress amended on the Indian Civil Rights Act, so the terms of self-government include the inherent power of Indian tribes. On the civil jurisdiction, it states that tribes lack civil jurisdiction to non-members for several reasons. It still unclear whether tribes general have civil jurisdiction over the Indians who are not necessarily members of the tribe. However, congress has re-vested tribes severally with jurisdiction to have the chance to try members who are not Indian for criminal conduct. The tribes may exercise jurisdiction over the Indian reservations only if the non –Indians enter into a consensual agreement and relationships like commercial deals, leases, contracts with tribal members.