Justice Dept. Cements Position on Concurrent Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in “Optional” P.L. 280 States

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

oaag-80488-v1-optional_pl_280_memo_to_u_s__attorneys

An excerpt:

For decades, conflicting judicial decisions and Department of Justice statements have led to uncertainty about whether the United States has concurrent jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 and 1153 over Indian-country crimes that fall within an “optional P.L. 280” State’s jurisdiction under Section 7 of Public Law No. 83-280, 67 Stat. 588, 590 (1953). The Acting Solicitor General, after reviewing prior positions of the Department and the underlying legal materials, has now concluded that the litigating position of the United States is that the United States does have this concurrent criminal jurisdiction. Your Offices therefore can bring prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 and 1153, in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 50.25(a)(2), notwithstanding any contrary view about optional P.L. 280 jurisdiction that the United States or the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) may have previously expressed.

One thought on “Justice Dept. Cements Position on Concurrent Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in “Optional” P.L. 280 States”

  1. Richard Monette January 20, 2017 / 2:30 pm

    So now native nation citizens will have three sets of criminal laws to follow? And since, if my 6th grade social studies textbook was correct, laws come from community or society norms and values, then native nation citizens live by three sets of norms and values? And since distinct sets of norms of values determine the nature of a distinct peoples…?

Comments are closed.