Because of the allotment process, land in the reservation is owned by a variety of private, public, and tribal entities. Law enforcement efforts in the area are complicated by this checkerboard of ownership which results in a variety of different legal jurisdictions. The tribe has had longstanding issues with state and county authorities, who since the 1970s had prosecuted in state court Ute members from within the tribal lands at this reservation and its two other holdings. The tribe filed suit against the state in federal district court. In
Ute Tribe v. Utah (10th Cir. 1985) (en banc), known as
Ute III, the full
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting
en banc, upheld the tribe's legal jurisdiction over its members within the reservations and affirmed its boundaries, rejecting the state and counties' claims that the area of jurisdiction had been reduced since the reservation was established in 1864. The
U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The state continued to prosecute Ute within the reservations in state court, in violation of the ruling in Ute III. The state Supreme Court ruled the reservation boundaries had been reduced, and the case was heard by the US Supreme Court,
Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 421-22 (1994). It upheld the Utah Supreme Court in affirming that some congressional actions had diminished the boundaries of the Uintah Reservation, but that the two other reservations were not affected. In an effort to reconcile the cases in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed
Ute Tribe v. Utah in 1997. So in a decision the parties call Ute V, this court elected to recall and modify Ute III's mandate. See
Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513, 1527-28 (10th Cir. 1997). Because
Hagen addressed the Uintah Valley Reservation, Ute V deemed that particular portion of Ute tribal lands diminished — and diminished according to the terms
Hagen dictated. So much relief was warranted, this court found, to "reconcile two inconsistent boundary determinations and to provide a uniform allocation of jurisdiction among separate sovereigns. Id. at 1523. The state and counties continued to prosecute Ute from within the reservation for offenses in state courts. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals called the plaintiffs and defendants together again in 2015. The court rejected the counties' claim to be acting as an arm of the state and entitled to the same immunity. It strongly advised the state and counties to observe the settled nature of this case and to refrain from their tactics to challenge the boundaries of the reservation and jurisdiction of the tribe over its people in "Indian country." ==Communities==