Jurisdiction: Exhaustion of Remedies and the Status of Tribal Courts
Sue Salmon
Abstract
Sue Salmon
Abstract
The status of Indian tribes as a part of the American government and society has caused constant problems since the United States Supreme Court considered the problem in Worcester v. Georgia 1 in 1832.This note considers the problem of tribal status as reflected in the federal courts' application of the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, with respect to tribal courts.In defining tribal legal and political status, the courts have been faced with assimilating many conflicting federal policies: the preserving of tribal culture and the independent political character of the tribes, 2 a duty to protect the Indian nations as dependent peoples,' and a concern with extending protection of individual civil rights to Indians. 4 The tribes were originally separate sovereign nations antedating federal and state governments.From the first European settlements in New England, the Indians were brought under the jurisdiction and control of the United States' government by conquest.In return for retaining their tribal identity, receiving federal monetary aid, food and medical assistance, and grants of land, the Indians were forced to give up a portion of their independence in the form of external sovereignty, that is, they were no longer allowed to declare war nor treat with foreign countries as independent nations.'The federal government thus assumed a position of guardian to the tribes, with an obligation to protect their remaining internal tribal sovereignty from encroachment by itself or the states.The Supreme Court had the opportunity to express this obligation in Worcester Y. Georgia, supra.In that case, the state of Georgia sought to impose state laws upon Cherokees living on Indian lands within the state.In Chief Justice Marshall's opinion, the Cherokee Nation was described as a "distinct community ' 6 with its own territory, and immune from the laws of Georgia, the state in which the reservation was located, except as expressly authorized by treaties, acts of Congress, or the Indian nation itself. 1 Because of its peculiar status, all dealings with the tribe would be performed by the federal government alone. 8Tribal status was thus designated as being somewhere between that of the states and the federal government.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The status of Indian tribes as a part of the American government and society has caused constant problems since the United States Supreme Court considered the problem in Worcester v. Georgia 1 in 1832.This note considers the problem of tribal status as reflected in the federal courts' application of the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, with respect to tribal courts.In defining tribal legal and political status, the courts have been faced with assimilating many conflicting federal policies: the preserving of tribal culture and the independent political character of the tribes, 2 a duty to protect the Indian nations as dependent peoples,' and a concern with extending protection of individual civil rights to Indians. 4 The tribes were originally separate sovereign nations antedating federal and state governments.From the first European settlements in New England, the Indians were brought under the jurisdiction and control of the United States' government by conquest.In return for retaining their tribal identity, receiving federal monetary aid, food and medical assistance, and grants of land, the Indians were forced to give up a portion of their independence in the form of external sovereignty, that is, they were no longer allowed to declare war nor treat with foreign countries as independent nations.'The federal government thus assumed a position of guardian to the tribes, with an obligation to protect their remaining internal tribal sovereignty from encroachment by itself or the states.The Supreme Court had the opportunity to express this obligation in Worcester Y. Georgia, supra.In that case, the state of Georgia sought to impose state laws upon Cherokees living on Indian lands within the state.In Chief Justice Marshall's opinion, the Cherokee Nation was described as a "distinct community ' 6 with its own territory, and immune from the laws of Georgia, the state in which the reservation was located, except as expressly authorized by treaties, acts of Congress, or the Indian nation itself. 1 Because of its peculiar status, all dealings with the tribe would be performed by the federal government alone. 8Tribal status was thus designated as being somewhere between that of the states and the federal government.
Key concepts: Jurisdiction, Law, Political science