P.L. 280 and Alaska Tribes
Tribal Transportation Conference
September 2014
Prepared by Lisa Jaeger
Tribal Government Specialist
Tanana Chiefs Conference
Fairbanks 1-800-478-6822
lisa.jaeger@tananachiefs.org
“It’s often said that Alaska is unique
in terms of federal Indian law, my
own view is that all Native
Americans are unique, each
individual Native American nation is
unique. Its own history, its own
culture, its own relationship with the
United States. And so to say that
Alaska is unique is nothing more
than saying Pueblos are unique, or
the Navajo’s are unique, they are,
and that ought to be acknowledged.”
Dave Case
1988 : Alaska Supreme Court decided that there were
no tribes in Alaska except for Metlakatla and possibly
a few others (Stevens Village Management case)
1986, 1987, and 1992: Native Village of Nenana v.
Dept. of Health and Human Services, In re K.E., In re
F.P., In re W.M. (Alaska Court System)…even if there
were tribes in Alaska, Public Law 280 terminated any
tribal jurisdiction tribes might have had.
1989: Nome Eskimo Community Case, Alaska
Supreme Court ruled that land can’t be taken away
from an entity organized under the Indian
Reorganization Act.
1990s
1991: Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak and Circle Village.
US Supreme Court ruled against Noatak and Circle requests
for state revenue sharing, but did not review the part of the
case from the lower court that decided that both Noatak and
Circle were both tribes.
1993: List of federally recognized tribes issued to make it
clear that the tribes in Alaska were indeed tribes and were to
be given the “same privileges and immunities’ as Lower 48
tribes
1994: Confirmed by Congress through the Tribal List Act.
1990s
Tribal courts in the TCC Region continued to conduct child
custody and child protection cases, even experiencing some
cooperation from state agencies. From somewhere in the
1990s, the number of children in custody began to run around
½ in tribal custody, and ½ in state custody. (currently around
150 child protection cases in each).
Some tribal courts were/are also addressing misdemeanors in
a civil manner, domestic violence, banishments, trespass,
animal control, alcohol regulation, status offenses, etc.
2000s

2001 : C.R.H. Nikolai case (originally Chickaloon was also
involved), State Supreme Court decided that Alaska Court System
could transfer ICWA cases to tribes.

2003: Perryville v. Tague (Alaska Court) Alaska tribes have the
right to banish a member from the village due to violent behavior
and to have the Alaska Court System and troopers assist in
enforcing their orders

2009: Kaltag v Hogan (Federal Court) Alaska tribal courts have
jurisdiction (concurrent with the State) to initiate and hear child
adoption cases. They are entitled to full faith and credit.

2011: Alaska v. Native Village of Tanana (Alaska Supreme) Tribes
have the authority to initiate child protection cases under the
Indian Child Welfare Act and under their inherent authority.
Current Picture of Tribal Jurisdiction

Clear Jurisdiction: Exclusive
• Determining membership/citizenship
• Internal affairs, determining own form of government,
and tribal justice system

Becoming more clear: Concurrent
• Domestic relations, child protection, adoption, domestic
violence when tribal members are involved

Less clear: Concurrent
• Infractions, status offenses, misdemeanors
• Enforcing regulatory law
– Best legal theories for these are protecting the health and
safety of the tribe and tribal members, when necessary to
regulate internal affairs, and when parties consent

No Tribal Jurisdiction
• Over matters outside the village, not involving tribal
members or affecting the tribe…or criminal jurisdiction
over non-Natives
Tribal Government Operations Code

Alaska tribal constitutions are different in the provisions they contain, so
codes each tribe needs will vary.
• Tribal council structures
• Jurisdiction of the tribe
• Details about waiving sovereign immunity
• Procedure for adopting, amending and repealing
ordinances
• Ethic standards for tribal council and officials
• Types of meetings, notification of meetings, quorums
for tribal meetings
• Elections procedures
• Popular participation in government, initiative,
referendum, recall, removal
• Rights of tribal members
• Membership and enrollment
• Cooperative agreements
Judicial Code
• Tribal court structure
– who are the judges?
– How are they seated?
– What length of terms do they have?
• Tribal court procedures
– How do cases get to the tribal court?
– Basic hearing procedures
– Rules for witnesses, evidence
• Appellate court structure and procedures
– Who are the judges for the appellate court
• Circle Court
– What kind of cases will they hear?
– How are the circle participants selected?
Domestic Relations Code
Child custody disputes and formalizing agreements
Child protection
Terminating parental rights
Foster home licensing
Adoptions
Guardianships
Marriage
Divorce/annulment
Probate
Elder Protection
Domestic Violence
Civil Law and Order Codes

Jurisdiction for Alaska tribes is less secure for handling these
types of cases than it is for child custody for example, but many
tribes are handling infractions, status offenses, and
misdemeanors as a civil manner

Some tribes have agreements with the state for handling juvenile
law and order cases, some are doing circle sentencing
recommendations on state cases, others handle these cases
without a written agreement

Types of Ordinances include:
Alcohol regulation
Underage drinking
Trespass
Vandalism
Theft
Minor assaults
Truancy
Curfew
Disorderly conduct
Misuse of firearms
Traffic – speeding - DUI
Harassment
Health and Safety - Environmental Ordinances





Animal Control
Abandoned Vehicles
Nuisances
Fireworks
Environmental regulation
• Solid waste
• Littering
• Burn barrels
• Hazardous waste
• Hazardous materials
• Outhouses and human
waste
• Water quality
Land Management Ordinances
• Council powers over land issues
• Rights of tribal members and land use
• Acquisition of land procedures
• Managing tribally owned lands
• Tribal land assignments
• Trespass
• Land use planning policies and procedures
Natural and Cultural Resources Ordinances
• Artifacts and Human remains
• Cultural use of Wildlife
• Protocol for Research on
the tribe, tribal land, and
tribal cultural resources
• Management policies and procedures for
natural resources
Tribal Business Ordinances
• TERO – Tribal Employment Rights
Ordinance
• Management policies and procedures
for tribal businesses
• Utilities
In spite of the lack of recognition by the
State of Alaska, and the State’s insistence
that P.L. 280 terminated tribal jurisdiction if
tribes did truly survive ANCSA, Alaska
tribes pursued exercising their sovereignty
in the 1970s and 1980s. It has been by
exercising their sovereignty that brought
forth the court cases that proved P.L. 280
did not terminate their jurisdiction and that
they have jurisdiction over a variety of
subjects.