Quote:
Originally Posted by Prudence
Aren't federally-recognized tribes sovereign somewhat in the sense that states are sovereign? Individual states can't go off and make treaties, but they can (within Constitutional limits) make laws that apply in that state.
|
Right, individual states are superseded by the federal government in treaty-making. Federally-recognized tribes have sovereign rights dependant on the federal government, which places them under federal jurisdiction, instead of state jurisdiction.
As far as gaming is concerned, the Gaming Act of 1988 stated that tribes must form compacts as an equal to the state in which they reside. The compacts can only be made if the state already allows Class III gaming, which is high-stakes gaming. The federal law came about as an interpretation of the right for Indian tribes to have gaming on their reservations, according to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Cabazon Mission Band in California v State of California. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that California did not have the right to ban a bingo establishment that the Cabazon Band had. It would have been a violation of their sovereign right to have gaming on their reservation, despite the fact that the State of California, at the time, did not allow it.
Indians are under the jurisdiction of the federal government with regard to criminal behavior beyond misdemeanors and that is why FBI agents are usually assigned to reservations.