Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country — the Major Crimes Act and Concurrent Authority

The question of who has authority to prosecute a crime — federal, state, or tribal government — is among the most complex in American law when the crime occurs in Indian country. Federal criminal jurisdiction in Indian country is not determined by citizenship or geography alone, but by a web of interlocking statutes, treaties, and Supreme Court decisions dating back to the 19th century. The defining provisions are concentrated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151–1170: definitions of Indian country (§ 1151), the General Crimes Act (§ 1152), and the Major Crimes Act (§ 1153). These laws mean that many serious crimes committed in Indian country are prosecuted by the federal government regardless of whether both, one, or neither party is Native American — a jurisdictional framework that the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma brought back into sharp national focus by holding that a large portion of eastern Oklahoma remains Indian country for criminal jurisdiction purposes.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 18 U.S.C. § 1151 — Indian country defined: three categories — (1) all land within any Indian reservation under U.S. jurisdiction, including rights-of-way and non-Indian owned land within reservation boundaries; (2) all dependent Indian communities; (3) all Indian allotments held in trust by the United States, with the roads running through them; this definition is the jurisdictional trigger for the entire chapter
• 18 U.S.C. § 1152 — General Crimes Act: federal criminal law applies in Indian country as if it were territory under exclusive federal jurisdiction; four exceptions: crimes by one Indian against another Indian, crimes for which the perpetrator has already been punished by the tribe, crimes involving intermarried non-Indians subject to tribal law, and crimes governed by treaty; the Act gives federal courts jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country
• 18 U.S.C. § 1153 — Major Crimes Act: when an Indian commits any of 13 enumerated serious felonies in Indian country — murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, sexual abuse (felonies under chapter 109A), incest, felony assault (under § 113), felony child abuse or neglect, arson, burglary, robbery, theft over $1,000, or child sexual exploitation — the crime is prosecuted in federal court under federal criminal law; defendant's Indian status is an element of the offense
• 18 U.S.C. § 1162 — State jurisdiction under Public Law 280: Congress granted to California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Alaska the same criminal jurisdiction over Indian country within their borders as they exercise over non-Indian territory; subsequent legislation allows other states to assume jurisdiction with tribal consent; states with PL 280 jurisdiction can prosecute crimes in Indian country that would otherwise be federal
• 18 U.S.C. § 1163 — Embezzlement from tribal organizations: stealing or misusing property belonging to tribal organizations, bands, or groups is a federal crime; penalties scale with the value of the property, up to felony imprisonment for theft over $1,000
• 18 U.S.C. § 1166 — Indian Gaming Regulatory Act gambling: state gambling laws apply in Indian country except to gaming conducted under IGRA; violations are prosecuted under state law (as adopted by federal reference)
• 18 U.S.C. § 1167–1168 — Theft from tribal gaming establishments: stealing from or embezzling from tribal gaming facilities is a federal crime; officer and employee embezzlement carries enhanced penalties
• 18 U.S.C. § 1170 — NAGPRA trafficking: intentionally selling, purchasing, or trafficking in Native American human remains or cultural items without lawful authority under NAGPRA is a federal crime

The Three-Tier Jurisdictional Framework

Criminal jurisdiction in Indian country has never been a simple federal monopoly. It operates as an overlapping three-tier framework between federal, state, and tribal governments, with jurisdiction determined by the identity of the defendant, the identity of the victim, the nature of the offense, and treaty history:

Federal-only: Under the Major Crimes Act (§ 1153), federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over 13 serious felonies committed by Indians in Indian country. These enumerated crimes include murder, kidnapping (see Federal Kidnapping Law), arson (see Federal Arson and Explosives Law), and sexual abuse. This means the federal Department of Justice — typically the U.S. Attorney's office for the district where the reservation is located — handles murder, rape, kidnapping, and other serious violent crimes involving Indian defendants in Indian country.

Federal with tribal concurrent jurisdiction: The General Crimes Act (§ 1152) gives federal courts jurisdiction when a non-Indian commits a crime against an Indian in Indian country. But the U.S. Supreme Court's Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) held that tribal courts generally cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. This created a gap: non-Indian perpetrators in Indian country often face federal prosecution or no prosecution at all.

State jurisdiction under Public Law 280: In the six states covered by PL 280 (California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Alaska), state criminal law applies directly in Indian country. This means crimes that would otherwise go to federal court in other states are prosecuted in state courts in PL 280 states.

Tribal courts: Tribal governments can exercise criminal jurisdiction over their own members for violations of tribal law. Following United States v. Lara (2004), Congress authorized tribes to extend criminal jurisdiction to nonmember Indians (Indians who belong to a different tribe). The Violence Against Women Act reauthorizations of 2013 and 2022 expanded tribal jurisdiction to allow prosecution of non-Indians who commit domestic violence against Indian victims in Indian country — a major expansion of tribal criminal authority.

McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) and Its Aftermath

The Supreme Court's 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma — in which the Court held that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's reservation in eastern Oklahoma was never disestablished by Congress — dramatically expanded the footprint of Indian country for federal criminal jurisdiction purposes. The ruling, and subsequent decisions establishing that the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole Nation reservations were similarly never disestablished, meant that a large portion of eastern Oklahoma — including most of the city of Tulsa — is Indian country where the federal government (not the state of Oklahoma) has jurisdiction over crimes involving Indians.

This required rapid restructuring of criminal prosecution across eastern Oklahoma, with the federal government taking over thousands of cases that Oklahoma had historically prosecuted as state crimes. Congress and the states have responded with various agreements to allow cross-deputization and information sharing, but the jurisdictional shift created by McGirt remains one of the most significant changes to Indian country criminal law in decades.

How It Affects You

If you live in or near Indian country: Whether a crime is prosecuted by the federal, state, or tribal government depends on the location of the crime, the identities of the parties, and the applicable statutes. In practice, this means that similar crimes can be prosecuted under different laws with different sentencing ranges depending on which courthouse handles them. Federal sentences for Major Crimes Act offenses may be significantly longer (or shorter) than what state law would provide.

If you work in federal law enforcement or as a federal prosecutor: The U.S. Attorney's office for each district covering Indian country carries a significant criminal docket of Major Crimes Act cases — murder, sexual assault, and other serious felonies that in non-Indian country would typically be state prosecutions. The FBI's Indian country programs are responsible for investigating these crimes. FBI and BIA special agents work alongside tribal law enforcement, creating a complex multi-agency investigative environment.

If you work in tribal government or tribal law enforcement (see Tribal Law Enforcement and Justice): Tribal sovereignty includes the right to maintain police forces and tribal courts, but criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians remains limited by federal law. Tribal law enforcement can detain non-Indians and turn them over to federal or state authorities; VAWA 2022 extended tribal prosecution authority for non-Indian domestic violence offenders and some other categories.

If you are a defense attorney in Indian country cases: Indian country criminal defense requires mastery of both federal criminal law and the jurisdictional framework. Whether the defendant is Indian, whether the victim is Indian, whether the offense falls under the Major Crimes Act, and which state's PL 280 status applies all affect the forum and applicable law. Post-McGirt jurisdiction disputes are still being resolved.

State Variations

The six PL 280 states (California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin, Alaska) have direct state criminal jurisdiction in Indian country within their borders — a fundamentally different framework than non-PL 280 states. Other states may have assumed partial jurisdiction under a 1968 amendment to PL 280 with tribal consent. The specific scope of state jurisdiction varies by state statute and the scope of the original assumption. In non-PL 280 states without assumption agreements, the federal-tribal framework applies and state courts generally have no criminal jurisdiction in Indian country.

Pending Legislation

Congress has continued to expand tribal criminal jurisdiction in recent years, particularly around domestic violence and sexual assault. The Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 (VAWA 2022) extended special domestic violence jurisdiction to allow tribal prosecution of non-Indians for stalking, sex trafficking, child violence, and other offenses against Indian victims in Indian country. Further expansions of tribal criminal authority are periodically considered. The jurisdictional complexity highlighted by McGirt has also led to state-federal discussions about delegation agreements and practical coordination mechanisms.

Recent Developments

The post-McGirt jurisdictional landscape in Oklahoma continued to evolve through 2026, with ongoing negotiations between the state and the Five Civilized Tribes about cross-deputization, prosecution priorities, and sharing of costs for the expanded federal criminal docket. Oklahoma's legislature and courts have worked to implement concurrent state jurisdiction agreements authorized by subsequent federal legislation. The Supreme Court's companion decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022), which held that states have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indians for crimes against Indians in Indian country even outside PL 280, somewhat reduced the McGirt ruling's jurisdictional shift.