Public Law 280
Public Law 280, enacted in August 1953, represents a significant shift in the legal landscape for Native Americans by allowing certain U.S. states to extend their civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian lands. This law originally applied to California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin, with the option for other states to adopt similar jurisdiction. Aimed at promoting the assimilation of Native Americans into mainstream society, Public Law 280 was widely criticized by Indian communities, as it undermined tribal sovereignty and self-governance, being passed without their consent. Despite its initial impact, amendments made in the late 1960s, including the requirement for tribal consent for future jurisdiction extensions and the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, helped to mitigate some of its more restrictive elements. Over time, the relationship between state authorities and tribal governments has evolved, with some tribes finding cooperation with state law enforcement beneficial. By the end of the twentieth century, Public Law 280 was being approached in a more collaborative manner, with greater consideration for Native American perspectives.
Public Law 280
During the early 1950’s, federal Indian policy returned to the goal of promoting the assimilation of Indians into American society.American Indians;attempts to assimilate Tribes were considered to be major barriers to this end, and a number of policies were developed to reduce their influence. One of these measures was Public Law 280, which sought to place tribal Indians under the jurisdiction of the laws of the states in which they resided. This marked a significant change in the legal status of Native Americans, for while Indians had long been subject to federal law, they usually had been considered to be subject to their own tribal courtsTribal courts when on reservations. Like other measures of the 1950’s, Public Law 280 sought to undermine those aspects of Indians’ legal status that set them apart from other Americans (Tribal sovereignty).Tribal sovereigntyPublic Law 280NezPerceBoy.getimage
Public Law 280 was limited by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.By Latham, Edward H. (University of Washington Libraries) [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsDwight D. EisenhowerLibrary of CongressPassed by Congress in August, 1953, Public Law 280 authorized state courts to assume civil and criminal jurisdiction of all Indian lands in the states of California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin. (Three reservations were excluded by name in the act.) Furthermore, other states were allowed to extend jurisdiction over reservations if they desired by making the necessary changes in their laws or constitutions. A few limits were placed on state powers: States could not levy property taxes on reservations or exercise jurisdiction with regard to Indian water rights. By 1968, nine additional states had extended jurisdiction over Indian lands within their borders.Public Law 280 was very unpopular with American Indians, who saw it as a drastic limitation on the tribal right of self-government that had been enacted without their consent. (President Dwight D. EisenhowerEisenhower, Dwight D. had objected to the lack of a provision for tribal consent but had signed the act when Congress refused to amend it.)Indian resentment of the act helped to persuade Congress to amend its provisions in the changed atmosphere of later years. The American Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968American Indian Civil Rights Act included provisions (known collectively as the Indian Bill of Rights) that were intended to safeguard Native American rights. One section altered Public Law 280 to require Indian consent before future extensions of state jurisdiction. States were also allowed to return jurisdiction to tribes. Public Law 280 was further limited in its impact by the Indian Child Welfare ActIndian Child Welfare Act (1978), which gave tribal courts exclusive jurisdiction over child custody cases on reservations.Though Public Law 280 initially was regarded as a major threat to tribal self-government, modification of the law lessened its potential for restricting tribal authority. Some states found that they preferred to avoid the expense involved in extending legal jurisdiction, while some tribes found it useful to ask the states to provide law and order. By the late twentieth century, the law was being used in a somewhat more cooperative manner that took Indian opinions into account.Public Law 280Bibliography
Duthu, N. Bruce. Shadow Nations: Tribal Sovereignty and the Limits of Legal Pluralism. New York: Oxford UP, 2013. Print.
Goldberg, Carole E. Planting Tail Feathers: Tribal Survival and Public Law 280. Los Angeles: American Indian Studies Center, U of California, 1997. Print.
Philp, Kenneth R. Termination Revisited: American Indians on the Trail to Self-determination, 1933–1953. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1999. Print.
Wildenthal, Bryan H. Native American Sovereignty on Trial: A Handbook with Cases, Laws, and Documents. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2003. Print.
Wunder, John R. The Indian Bill of Rights, 1968. New York: Garland, 1996. Print.