| Independent Tribal Courts | |
|---|---|
| Established | Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 |
| Location | Various Native American tribal territories |
| Composition method | Tribal judiciary |
| Authorized by | Tribal sovereignty, Tribal constitutions |
| Number of positions | Varies by tribe |
Independent tribal courts are judicial systems that are established and operated by Native American tribes within the United States.[1] These courts are separate from the federal and state court systems and are designed to handle legal matters within the tribe's jurisdiction. The purpose of independent tribal courts is to provide a legal framework for Native American tribes to govern themselves and to resolve disputes within their communities, without interference from the United States federal or state governments.[2] The independent tribal court system is an important tool for tribes to maintain their own legal traditions and to resolve disputes within their communities.[3]
Tribal courts are also important for preserving tribal sovereignty and self-determination.[4] However, they are limited in jurisdiction and funding.[attribution needed]
- ^ "Federal Indian Law — Tribal Jurisdiction — Fifth Circuit Disclaims Independent Obligation to Ensure that Tribal Courts Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Disputes Involving Nonmembers. — Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 746 F.3d 167 (5th Cir.), reh'g en banc denied, 746 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2014)". Harvard Law Review. 128 (3): 1035–1044. 2015. JSTOR 24643875.
- ^ Miller, Robert (October 2022). "Tribal Sovereignty and Economic Efficiency Versus the Courts". Washington Law Review. 97 (3): 775. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4071223. S2CID 248019034. SSRN 4071223. ProQuest 2735925610.
- ^ Salmon, Sue (1976). "Jurisdiction: Exhaustion of Remedies and the Status of Tribal Courts". American Indian Law Review. 4 (2): 295–301. doi:10.2307/20067996. JSTOR 20067996.
- ^ Keogh, Greg S. (2018). "Extending Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction Outside of Indian Country: Kelsey V. Pope". American Indian Law Review. 43 (1): 223–242. JSTOR 26632878.