Revenue and Indian Citizenship acts, 1924 The
Revenue Act of 1924 (), also known as the Mellon tax bill after
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, cut
federal tax rates and established the
U.S. Board of Tax Appeals, which was later renamed the
United States Tax Court in 1942. The Revenue Act was applicable to incomes for 1924. The bottom rate, on income under $4,000, fell from 1.5% to 1.125% (both rates are after reduction by the "
earned income credit"). A parallel act, the
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (), granted all non-citizen resident Indians citizenship. Thus the Revenue Act declared that there were no longer any "Indians, not taxed" to be not counted for purposes of
United States congressional apportionment. President
Calvin Coolidge signed the bill into law.
Indian Reorganization Act, 1934 In 1934, the
Indian Reorganization Act, codified as Title 25, Section 476 of the U.S. Code, allowed Indian nations to select from a catalogue of constitutional documents that enumerated powers for tribes and for
tribal councils. Though the Act did not specifically recognize the Courts of Indian Offenses, 1934 is widely considered to be the year when tribal authority, rather than United States authority, gave the tribal courts legitimacy.
John Collier and
Nathan Margold wrote the solicitor's opinion, "Powers of Indian Tribes" which was issued October 25, 1934, and commented on the wording of the
Indian Reorganization Act. This opinion stated that sovereign powers inhered in Indian tribes except for where they were restricted by Congress. The opinion stated that "Conquest has brought the Indian tribes under the control of Congress, but except as Congress has expressly restricted or limited the internal powers of sovereignty vested in the Indian tribes such powers are still vested in the respective tribes and may be exercised by their duly constituted organs of government." The Reorganization Act was difficult to implement due to the lack of a centralized text on federal Indian law. In 1939
Felix S. Cohen became Chief of the Indian Law Survey, an effort to compile the federal laws and treaties regarding
American Indians. The resulting book, published in 1941 as
The Handbook of Federal Indian Law, became much more than a simple survey. The Handbook was the first to show how hundreds of years of diverse treaties, statutes, and decisions formed a comprehensive whole. Today, Cohen is credited with creating the modern field of Federal Indian Law. For this work, Cohen received the department's Distinguished Service Award in 1948. The
University of New Mexico reissued the initial Handbook in 1971, and updated versions of the Handbook were published in 1982 and 2005.
Public Law 280, 1953 In 1953, Congress enacted
Public Law 280, which gave some states extensive jurisdiction over the criminal and civil controversies involving Indians on Indian lands. Many, especially Indians, continue to believe the law unfair because it imposed a system of laws on the tribal nations without their approval. In 1965, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that no law had ever extended provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including the right of
habeas corpus, to tribal members brought before tribal courts. Still, the court concluded, "it is pure fiction to say that the Indian courts functioning in the Fort Belknap Indian community are not in part, at least, arms of the federal government. Originally they were created by federal executive and imposed upon the Indian community, and to this day the federal government still maintains a partial control over them." In the end however, the Ninth Circuit limited its decision to the particular reservation in question and stated, "it does not follow from our decision that the tribal court must comply with every constitutional restriction that is applicable to federal or state courts." While many modern courts in Indian nations today have established
full faith and credit with state courts, the nations still have no direct access to U.S. courts. When an Indian nation files suit against a state in U.S. court, they do so with the approval of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. In the modern legal era, the courts and Congress have, however, further refined the often competing jurisdictions of tribal nations, states and the United States in regard to Indian law. In the 1978 case of
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, the Supreme Court, in a 6–2 opinion authored by Justice
William Rehnquist, concluded that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over non-Indians (the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at that time,
Warren Burger, and Justice
Thurgood Marshall filed a dissenting opinion). But the case left unanswered some questions, including whether tribal courts could use criminal contempt powers against non-Indians to maintain decorum in the courtroom, or whether tribal courts could subpoena non-Indians. A 1981 case,
Montana v. United States, clarified that tribal nations possess inherent power over their internal affairs, and civil authority over non-members on
fee-simple lands within its reservation when their "conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe." Other cases of those years precluded states from interfering with tribal nations' sovereignty. Tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the federal government, not states, under
Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation (1980). Tribes are sovereign over tribal members and tribal land, under
United States v. Mazurie (1975). In
Duro v. Reina, , the Supreme Court held that a tribal court does not have criminal jurisdiction over a non-member Indian, but that tribes "also possess their traditional and undisputed power to exclude persons who they deem to be undesirable from tribal lands. ... Tribal law enforcement authorities have the power if necessary, to eject them. Where jurisdiction to try and punish an offender rests outside the tribe, tribal officers may exercise their power to detain and transport him to the proper authorities." In response to this decision, Congress passed the '
Duro Fix', which recognizes the power of tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction within their reservations over all Indians, including non-members. The
Duro Fix was upheld by the Supreme Court in
United States v. Lara, .
Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe (1956) In
Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, the United States Supreme Court concluded that two
Oglala Sioux defendants convicted of adultery under tribal laws, and another challenging a tax from the tribe, were not exempted from the tribal justice system because they had been granted U.S. citizenship. It found that tribes "still possess their inherent sovereignty excepting only when it has been specifically taken from them by treaty or Congressional Act". This means American Indians do not have exactly the same rights of citizenship as other American citizens. The court cited case law from a pre-1924 case that said, "when Indians are prepared to exercise the privileges and bear the burdens of"
sui iuris, i.e. of one's own right and not under the power of someone else, "the tribal relation may be dissolved and the national guardianship brought to an end, but it rests with Congress to determine when and how this shall be done, and whether the emancipation shall be complete or only partial" (
U.S. v. Nice, 1916). The court further determined, based on the earlier
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock case, that "It is thoroughly established that Congress has
plenary authority over Indians." The court held that, "the granting of citizenship in itself did not destroy ... jurisdiction of the Indian tribal courts and ... there was no intention on the part of Congress to do so." The adultery conviction and the power of tribal courts were upheld. Further, the court held that whilst no law had directly established tribal courts, federal funding "including pay and other expenses of judges of Indian courts" implied that they were legitimate courts. ==Tribal governments today==