|
''Washington v.Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation'', 439 U.S. 463 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Washington's imposition of partial jurisdiction over certain actions on an Indian reservation, when not requested by the tribe, was valid under Public Law 280.〔''Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation'', 〕 ==Background== The Yakima Nation is an Indian tribe with its reservation in southern Washington.〔In 1994, the spelling of the tribe's name was changed to Yakama to reflect the name used in the Treaty between the confederation of tribes and the U.S.〕 The tribe comprises 14 distinct Indian tribes that the U.S. banded together in the 1850s for the purpose of treaty making. The current treaty was ratified by the Senate in 1859, under this Treaty the tribe reserved to itself for its reservation, as well as the right to exercise certain reserved rights on ceded lands and usual and accustomed locations. The reservation has tribal land and land held in fee. The fee land is owned by both tribal members and non-Indians, and tribal members are outnumbered greatly by non-Indians.〔 Public Law 280 transferred law enforcement authority from the federal government to state law enforcement in six states,〔Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin〕 and other states were allowed to assume criminal jurisdiction if the affected Indian (Native American) tribe gave its consent. The idea was to divest the tribes of jurisdiction in matters that were "deemed to be outside their competence". In 1963, the state of Washington enacted a statute〔Revised Code of Washington, Section 37.12.010〕 to assume such jurisdiction. This statute provided that the state would only assume criminal jurisdiction with a tribe's consent, with 8 exceptions.〔The exceptions were compulsory school attendance, public assistance, domestic relations, mental illness, juvenile delinquency, adoption proceedings, dependent children, and motor vehicle operations.〕 The tribe did not consent to the state assuming criminal jurisdiction, and objected to being subject to the 8 listed exceptions.〔 The tribe then filed suit in U.S. District Court seeking relief from the enforcement of the 8 exceptions. The District Court rejected the tribes claims and entered judgment for the state. The tribe then appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After the original three judge panel heard oral arguments, the Court of Appeals decided ''sua sponte'' to hear the case ''en banc'', on the limited question of whether the state could assume partial jurisdiction. The court found that there was no prohibition on the state assuming partial jurisdiction and referred the remainder of the case to the original three-judge panel.〔 The panel of the Court of Appeals found that the "checkerboard jurisdictional system"〔 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found no way to separate the offending portion of the statute and declared the entirety of the law unconstitutional. The state then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted ''certiorari'' and requested that the parties brief the court on the issues of partial geographic and subject matter jurisdiction as well as the Equal Protection Clause.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|