The Ex parte Crow Dog (1883) case showed that the federal government cannot exercise _______ over tribal members on the reservation unless Congress does _______? Jurisdiction; unless Congress has specifically conferred that power.

The Major Crimes Act (1885) gave the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over seven “major” crimes committed by Indians on the reservation, which means if a “major” crime is committed by an Indian against another Indian on the reservation, the federal government has jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction if a non-major crime is committed by an Indian against another Indian on the reservation_______? The tribe.

Who has exclusive jurisdiction over a major or non-major crime by a non-Indian against an Indian …show more content…
Whether assumption of federal criminal jurisdiction will make the tribal community safer, whether or not granting the request will increase the law enforcement, judicial and/or corrections resources available to the tribe. Information from federal agencies, state/local law enforcement and tribal consultation.

Who requests retrocession of Public Law 280 and who requests assumption of federal criminal jurisdiction under TLOA? Why is a request for assumption of federal criminal jurisdiction beneficial to a tribe in a Public Law 280 state where the state does not want to give up any jurisdiction? Only the state can request retrocession and the tribe can ask for assumption of federal jurisdiction – beneficial because the tribe can have it granted whether the state agrees with it or not.

Indian Civil Rights Act 1968 was amended in 1986 to increase the sentencing and fine limits on tribal courts. What were the original ICRA 1968 sentencing and fine limits on tribal courts?
No greater than six-months imprisonment or a fine of $500 or both.

How was IRCA amended in 1991 to deal with this Duro case, also known as the