Indian Land Allotment, Trust System & Cobell Settlement

The Indian land trust system is one of the most legally complex and financially consequential aspects of federal Indian policy. The U.S. holds approximately 56 million acres of land "in trust" for tribal nations and individual Native Americans — meaning the federal government holds legal title while the tribe or individual holds beneficial interest. The trust system's roots lie in a century of federal policies that simultaneously stripped Native people of most of their land and then mismanaged the remainder. The General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) of 1887 broke up tribally held reservation lands into individual 160-acre allotments assigned to individual Indians, with "surplus" lands sold to non-Indians — a policy that reduced Native land holdings from approximately 138 million acres to 48 million acres in 50 years. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 ended allotment, restored some lands to trust, and allowed tribal self-governance — but left behind a fractionated heirship crisis: allotted lands pass by intestate succession, and after generations of division among heirs, a single 160-acre allotment may have hundreds or even thousands of co-owners, each holding a fractional interest worth pennies annually but costing the government significant administrative expense to manage. The federal government's mismanagement of trust funds — particularly Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts holding royalties from oil, gas, timber, and grazing leases on trust lands — resulted in the landmark Cobell v. Salazar class action ($3.4 billion settlement, 2012), the largest class action settlement in U.S. history, which provided individual account holders partial compensation for decades of underpaid or lost trust fund revenues.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 25 U.S.C. § 331 (Dawes Act) — The 1887 General Allotment Act authorized the President to allot reservation lands to individual Indians (160 acres to head of family, 80 acres to single adults); allotted lands were held in trust for 25 years then transferred to fee ownership; "surplus" reservation lands were sold to non-Indians; the Act was the primary mechanism by which Native land holdings were reduced from ~138 million to ~48 million acres
• 25 U.S.C. § 461 (IRA) — The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 ended allotment; prohibited further land allotments and sales; restored undisposed surplus lands to tribal ownership; authorized the Secretary to restore lands to tribal trust; established tribal self-governance structures; allowed tribes to adopt constitutions; set up a $10M revolving loan fund for tribal economic development
• 25 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2221 (ILCA/AIPRA) — The Indian Land Consolidation Act (1983) and its major revision, the American Indian Probate Reform Act (2004), address fractionated heirship: AIPRA reformed the probate of allotted Indian lands to prevent further fractionation (small interests pass to tribe rather than being subdivided further among heirs); established the Cobell Land Buy-Back Program (using $1.5B from the Cobell settlement) to consolidate fractionated interests by purchasing interests from willing sellers and conveying them to tribes
• 25 U.S.C. §§ 4001–4061 (Trust Fund Management Reform Act) — The American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 created the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) within Interior to reform BIA's management of IIM accounts; required annual statements to account holders; established accounting standards; the Act was a legislative response to documented mismanagement but did not resolve the backlog of unreconciled historical accounts — leading to Cobell litigation
• Federal trust responsibility — Beyond specific statutes, the federal government has a fiduciary duty (the "trust responsibility") to manage Indian trust lands and funds with the highest standards of care; this duty arises from treaty obligations and the government-to-government relationship; courts have found that BIA's mismanagement of IIM accounts breached this duty (Cobell v. Norton/Salazar)

How It Works

When trust land is leased for oil, gas, grazing, timber, or mining, royalties flow to Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts maintained by the BIA and the Office of Special Trustee for the beneficial owner — a system that, for decades, operated with inadequate record-keeping, commingled funds, and lost records, resulting in chronic under-accounting of hundreds of thousands of accounts. Cobell v. Norton (filed 1996) documented this systemic breach of fiduciary duty and ultimately produced the largest class action settlement in U.S. history: the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 authorized a $3.4 billion settlement — $1.9 billion in the Trust Administration component compensating approximately 500,000 IIM account holders for historical underpayments (averaging $1,000–$2,000 per class member), and $1.5 billion in the Land Buy-Back Program funding voluntary purchase and consolidation of fractional interests from individual allottees.

The fractionation problem runs deeper than the Cobell settlement could fully address. Allotted lands pass intestate to all heirs equally under federal law, so after four or more generations, a single 160-acre allotment may have 200+ co-owners each holding a fractional interest — in extreme cases, heirs receive $0.20 from a $100/year grazing income, with the BIA spending more to administer the payment than the payment itself. The American Indian Probate Reform Act (AIPRA) addressed prospective fractionation by directing interests below a threshold to pass to the tribe rather than subdivide further, and the Cobell Buy-Back Program has purchased and consolidated millions of fractional interests since 2012. Separately, tribes and individual Indians can petition the federal government under Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act to take fee land into trust status — converting privately owned land to trust land exempt from state property taxes, subject to tribal jurisdiction, and available for tribal programs — a pathway that McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) underscored by confirming that large portions of eastern Oklahoma remain Indian Country.

How It Affects You

If you are a Native American with interests in allotted land or an IIM account: Check whether you have an IIM account and review your annual statement from the Office of Special Trustee (contact: 1-888-678-6836 or ost.doi.gov). If you received a Cobell settlement payment (2013–2015), review whether your payment reflected the correct fractional interests. If you own fractionated interests in allotted land, you may have received or be eligible to receive a purchase offer under the Land Buy-Back Program — proceeds from selling fractional interests to the Cobell-funded buy-back program provide cash while consolidating land for tribal use. The Native American Rights Fund (narf.org) and legal aid programs in tribal communities provide assistance with trust land issues.

If you are a business or energy developer interested in trust land leasing: Leasing trust land requires BIA approval (for individual allotments) or tribal approval plus BIA approval (for tribal trust land). The process is governed by 25 CFR Parts 162 (general leasing) and 211/212 (mineral leasing). Trust land leases are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and consultation requirements. The regulatory complexity of trust land transactions creates delays — the BIA has been working to streamline the process, but trust land leasing remains significantly more complex than fee land transactions. Work with experienced BIA liaison counsel; the trust approval process can add 6–18 months to a project timeline.

If you are an attorney, estate planner, or probate professional: Allotted Indian land is subject to AIPRA probate rules, not state probate law. The BIA's Office of Hearings and Appeals handles Indian land probate; the process is administrative (not court-based). Understanding AIPRA's threshold rules (interests below a certain value pass to the spouse or devisee, not to all heirs equally) is critical for estate planning with clients who have allotment interests. The fractionation of existing interests is essentially irreversible without the voluntary buy-back program; future fractionation is limited by AIPRA's rules.

If you are a tribal leader or economic development professional: The trust land system is both a protection and a limitation. Trust status protects land from seizure, foreclosure, and non-Indian acquisition — but it also limits the ability to use trust land as collateral for commercial lending (lenders cannot foreclose on trust land). Tribes have used creative financing structures (leasehold mortgages, revenue bonds backed by gaming or enterprise revenue) to access capital without pledging trust land. The HEARTH Act (2012) gives some tribes authority to approve certain surface leases without BIA approval — a meaningful streamlining for tribes with established leasing programs.

State Variations

Trust land is exempt from state and local property taxes and generally from state regulatory jurisdiction (environmental permitting, zoning, building codes) unless federal law specifically extends state authority. This creates significant economic advantages (no property tax on trust land businesses) and complications (difficulty obtaining state-issued permits and licenses for on-reservation activities). Public Law 280 states have state civil and criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country but this does not give them property tax authority over trust land.

Implementing Regulations

• 25 CFR Part 115 — Trust funds for individual Indians and tribes (IIM account regulations)

• 25 CFR Part 162 — Leases and permits on trust and restricted land

• 25 CFR Parts 211–212 — Indian mineral development (leasing regulations)

• 25 CFR Part 179 — Probate of Indian estates (AIPRA implementing regulations)

• 25 CFR Part 18 — Tribal Probate Codes (30 sections): the BIA regulations governing how tribes may create, submit, and obtain federal approval for their own probate codes governing the descent and distribution of trust lands. The American Indian Probate Reform Act (AIPRA) of 2004 (25 U.S.C. § 2205) authorized tribes to adopt tribal probate codes that supersede the federal intestacy rules for trust real property within the tribe's jurisdiction — allowing tribes to design inheritance rules that keep land in Indian hands and prevent further fractionation. Part 18 establishes the Department of Interior approval process that tribal codes must pass before becoming legally effective. Key provisions:

  • § 18.101 — Tribal authority: any tribe may create and adopt a tribal probate code; tribal law governs its internal form and enactment (tribal constitution or comparable organic act)
  • § 18.102 — Submission trigger: a tribe must submit its probate code for federal approval if the code governs the descent or distribution of trust real property; codes that address only fee-land inheritance or tribal membership matters do not require federal approval
  • § 18.103 — Scope of review: the Department reviews only the provisions regarding descent and distribution of trust real property; it does not review or control how tribes allocate trust personalty or non-trust property — those provisions stand on their own without federal approval
  • § 18.104 — Trust personalty excluded: tribal probate codes may not govern the distribution of trust personalty (cash in IIM accounts, livestock on trust land, etc.); all trust personalty passes under the federal Indian probate rules regardless of tribal code — this exclusion reflects the federal government's direct fiduciary responsibility for trust funds
  • § 18.105 — Submission process: the tribe submits the code plus a duly executed tribal resolution adopting it to the Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs; the submission must identify which specific provisions address trust real property descent and distribution
  • § 18.106 — Approval criteria: to receive approval, the trust-land provisions must: (a) be consistent with AIPRA's restrictions on subdivision of small interests; (b) not restrict the right of a surviving spouse to a life estate under federal law; and (c) not discriminate on the basis of sex or race in determining heirs; BIA evaluates whether the code would produce fractionation outcomes worse than the federal default rules
  • § 18.107 — 180-day review deadline: the Assistant Secretary must approve or disapprove within 180 days of receipt; failure to act within 180 days does not result in automatic approval — the Department must issue a written decision
  • § 18.108 — Effect of approval: approval applies only to the trust real property descent and distribution sections reviewed; the balance of the tribal probate code is self-executing under tribal sovereignty without federal endorsement; upon approval, the tribal code supersedes the federal intestacy rules (25 U.S.C. § 2206) for that tribe's trust lands
  • § 18.110 — Effective date: an approved tribal probate code may not take effect sooner than 180 days after the date of the Department's approval — giving the tribe time to educate members, train BIA probate officers, and update estate planning documents
  • § 18.111 — Repeal: if a tribe repeals its probate code, the repeal takes effect no sooner than 180 days from notice to the Department; upon repeal, the federal intestacy rules automatically reapply to all subsequent deaths — preserving legal continuity for trust property inheritance during the transition

  The tribal probate code authority is one of AIPRA's most significant self-determination provisions. Federal intestate rules had contributed to extreme fractionation by dividing trust interests among all heirs equally without minimum thresholds — a 160-acre allotment with 20 heirs creates 20 separate interests, each potentially subdivided again in the next generation. Tribes that adopt probate codes can direct small interests to consolidate with the tribe, establish preference for surviving spouses, or require that all heirs collectively either buy out dissenting co-owners or sell — eliminating automatic fractional subdivision. As of 2024, a growing number of tribes have enacted approved tribal probate codes, particularly in the Pacific Northwest and Great Plains where fractionation is most severe.

• 25 CFR Part 152 — Issuance of Patents in Fee, Certificates of Competency, and Removal of Restrictions: the BIA regulations governing the process by which the federal government converts trust or restricted Indian land to fee simple (unrestricted) ownership, ending the federal trust relationship for that parcel. This authority traces to the General Allotment Act era and was used aggressively before 1934 to convert millions of acres of Indian trust land to fee status; once converted, land became subject to state property taxes and could be sold to non-Indians, contributing to the loss of roughly 90 million acres of Indian landholdings between 1887 and 1934. Post-1934, fee patenting continues under strictly discretionary Secretary of Interior authority. Key provisions:

  • § 152.4 — Application for patent in fee: any Indian 21 or older may apply in writing to the BIA agency having jurisdiction over the land; triggers a discretionary review of the applicant's competency
  • § 152.5 — Issuance: the Secretary may approve a fee patent if, in discretion, the applicant is found competent; upon delivery, BIA supervision over the parcel ends — the land becomes subject to state property taxes, state law, and may be sold to anyone without further BIA approval
  • § 152.6 — Non-Indian heirs: when trust land is inherited by a non-Indian, the Secretary may issue a fee patent or require sale; non-Indians cannot hold land in trust status
  • § 152.7–152.8 — Certificates of competency: for land held in restricted fee status (as opposed to full trust), an Indian 21 or older may apply; issuance lifts all restrictions and creates unrestricted fee property
  • § 152.9 — Osage Tribe special provisions: adult Osage members with one-half or more Indian blood follow a separate process reflecting the Osage mineral estate's unique federal oversight structure
  • §§ 152.10–152.16 — Removal of restrictions (Five Civilized Tribes): the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole nations follow separate statutory authority under the Act of August 11, 1955; removal may occur on application or without application when the Secretary determines it is in the Indian's interest, with judicial review available for non-consensual removals (§ 152.15)
  • § 152.2 — Withholding authority: the Secretary may withhold action on any fee-removal application where removal would adversely affect the Indian's best interest — the primary substantive check on inappropriate patenting
  • §§ 152.22–152.31 — Sales and conveyances: trust and restricted land sales require Secretarial approval and fair-market appraisal; competitive sealed bidding is the default; BIA employees are prohibited from bidding

  The historical weight of fee patenting is substantial: "competency commissions" of the early 20th century issued patents to thousands of Indians — often regardless of actual readiness — resulting in rapid land loss to tax forfeitures and sales under economic duress. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 ended this era, but Part 152 keeps the authority alive. Current BIA policy applies the competency standard conservatively; most applications today come from Indians who wish to mortgage or develop land for which the trust approval process creates administrative barriers.

• 25 CFR Part 151 — Land Acquisitions: the BIA regulations governing the process by which the Secretary of the Interior takes land into federal trust for the benefit of an individual Indian or a tribe — the complement to Part 152's fee-patenting authority. Trust acquisition is the mechanism that converts privately held or fee-owned land into reservation land; once land is in trust, it is exempt from state property taxes, subject to federal Indian law protections, cannot be sold without federal approval, and is generally subject to tribal jurisdiction. Trust land acquisition has been one of the most litigated areas of federal Indian law following Carcieri v. Salazar (2009), in which the Supreme Court held that the Indian Reorganization Act's "now under federal jurisdiction" language limits the Secretary's IRA trust acquisition authority to tribes that were under federal jurisdiction in 1934. BIA's 2024 rule (effective January 11, 2024) revised the Part 151 regulations to clarify the post-Carcieri framework. Key provisions:

  • § 151.2 — Definitions: "contiguous" means adjacent to or surrounded by the tribe's existing reservation; "individual Indian" means a person who is enrolled in a federally recognized tribe or is a descendant of such a person regarded as an Indian by the community in which they live
  • § 151.3 — Policy: the Secretary shall acquire land in trust when it is in the best interest of the Indian or tribe; policy gives priority to on-reservation or contiguous acquisitions and recognizes the goal of reducing Indian land loss by reconsolidating former trust lands
  • § 151.10 — Criteria for on-reservation or contiguous acquisitions: BIA evaluates the existence of statutory authority (most often IRA § 5, 25 U.S.C. § 5108); the need of the tribe for additional land; the purposes for which the land will be used; the impact on state and local governments (particularly tax revenue loss from removing land from county tax rolls); and BIA's ability to discharge the additional trust responsibilities; on-reservation acquisitions carry a presumption in favor of approval
  • § 151.11 — Criteria for noncontiguous acquisitions: acquisitions not adjacent to the existing reservation face heightened scrutiny — the tribe must demonstrate a specific need for that particular parcel and explain why on-reservation land cannot meet the need; anticipated state and local government impact weighs more heavily at this tier
  • § 151.12 — Criteria for initial reservations: for tribes acquiring their first trust land, BIA evaluates congressional intent in the tribe's recognition or treaty history and whether the acquisition is consistent with the tribe's recognized government-to-government status
  • § 151.13 — Secretary's action: upon receiving a complete application, BIA prepares an analysis and may request additional information; after environmental review, BIA issues a written decision approving or denying the request with stated reasons; the decision is subject to appeal through the Interior Board of Indian Appeals
  • § 151.14 — Title review: BIA examines the deed chain to verify the applicant holds clear title, reviews existing encumbrances (mortgages, easements, tax liens) that will survive trust acquisition, and requires a survey if boundaries are not established; outstanding tax liens must generally be resolved before acquisition is finalized
  • § 151.15 — Environmental review: all trust acquisitions require NEPA compliance; on-reservation or small acquisitions typically qualify for categorical exclusion; larger acquisitions or those with foreseeable significant impacts require an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, adding 12–36 months to the process
  • § 151.16 — Formalization: upon approval, BIA accepts legal title through an instrument of conveyance; the deed is filed in the name of the United States in trust for the tribe or individual Indian; recording follows applicable state recording procedures even though the land is now in federal trust status
  • § 151.17 — Pending requests: applications filed before January 11, 2024 (the 2024 rule's effective date) are processed under the pre-2024 regulatory framework; the transitional provision protects the expectations of applicants who filed under the earlier standards

  Part 151 is the operative regulation behind trust land acquisitions that Carcieri v. Salazar complicated — particularly for tribes recognized after 1934 or with gaps in documented federal jurisdiction. The 2024 revision reflected BIA's effort to provide clearer, more defensible standards after years of Carcieri-driven litigation that left acquisition decisions vulnerable to challenge. For gaming-related acquisitions, Part 151 operates alongside the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's two-part test (25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(A)) — both the trust acquisition and the IGRA nexus must clear separate regulatory and legal hurdles. Primary statutory authority: 25 U.S.C. § 5108 (IRA § 5). 2024 amendment: 89 FR 36 (January 2, 2024) — revised criteria and process to address post-Carcieri litigation landscape.

• 25 CFR Part 1200 — American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act (29 sections, 4 subparts): the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) regulations implementing the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. § 4001 et seq.). The 1994 Act was a direct response to decades of documented mismanagement of tribal trust funds by the federal government — the Cobell v. Salazar class-action litigation (eventually settled in 2009 for $3.4 billion) exposed how the Interior Department had failed to account for billions of dollars in Individual Indian Money (IIM) account revenues from oil, gas, and other resource activities. Part 1200 gives tribes a formal pathway to withdraw their trust funds from federal management and manage them directly. Key provisions:

  • § 1200.10 — Eligibility: any tribe for which OST manages funds in trust is eligible to apply for withdrawal; this covers tribal (not individual Indian) funds — IIM individual accounts are governed separately under 25 CFR Part 115
  • § 1200.11 — Scope of withdrawable funds: a tribe may withdraw some or all trust funds upon OST approval of a management plan; certain judgment funds (from Indian Claims Commission awards) and settlement funds may also be withdrawn subject to statutory use restrictions in the underlying judgment or settlement act
  • § 1200.12 — Limitations on withdrawn funds: judgment funds and settlement funds may only be withdrawn if the tribe uses them as specified in the previously approved plan for those funds; "Proceeds of Labor" funds (revenues from tribal-controlled businesses) face fewer restrictions and may generally be withdrawn for any governmental purpose
  • § 1200.13 — Application process: a tribe submits four copies of its application to the OST Director of External Affairs, including proof of tribal member notification, a tribal resolution authorizing withdrawal, and a Tribal Management Plan describing investment goals, risk management, fraud controls, and investment manager credentials
  • § 1200.14 — Tribal Management Plan requirements: the Plan must contain investment goals and strategy; protection against substantial loss of principal (§ 1200.16 standards); copies of tribal ordinances governing fund management with fraud and abuse controls; description of the tribe's investment management experience and track record; qualifications of investment managers; and, for funds exceeding certain thresholds, SEC-registered investment advisors
  • § 1200.15 — Approval process: OST has 90 calendar days from receiving a complete application to approve or disapprove; disapprovals must be in writing and give the tribe an opportunity to correct deficiencies before final action; upon approval, OST and the tribe agree on a transfer date; funds transfer by ACH or wire to a tribally-controlled account
  • § 1200.16 — Protection against loss: the management plan must demonstrate how the tribe will protect against substantial loss of principal; the regulation does not mandate specific investment vehicles but requires that the plan address diversification, risk exposure, and liquidity sufficient to meet known tribal obligations
  • Subpart C — Returning Funds to Trust: a tribe that withdraws funds but later wishes to return them to federal trust management may do so by notifying OST and satisfying a simplified re-enrollment process; federal liability for the returned funds' management resumes only after formal acceptance
  • Subpart D — Technical Assistance: tribes that have not yet developed the capacity to manage funds independently may apply for OST technical assistance or grants to build financial management infrastructure — recognizing that smaller or less-resourced tribes face capacity barriers that pure eligibility rules would not address

  Part 1200's significance lies in what it made possible after the Cobell settlement: tribes that previously had no control over their trust funds can now manage those assets directly, escaping the federal bureaucracy that generated decades of mismanagement. As of 2024, OST manages approximately $5.5 billion in tribal trust funds across more than 250 tribes; a significant subset have explored or executed withdrawals under Part 1200. The regulation reflects the broader federal Indian policy shift toward tribal self-determination — parallel to the self-governance contracting authority under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act — applied specifically to the financial trust relationship. The 71 FR 15339 (2006) amendment streamlined the application process following implementation experience with early withdrawals.

Pending Legislation

• HEARTH Act expansion — Proposals to extend HEARTH Act leasing authority to additional tribes and lease categories
• Trust land acquisition reform — Ongoing litigation and proposed legislation about the BIA's authority to take land into trust (following Carcieri v. Salazar, 2009, which limited trust acquisition for tribes not under federal jurisdiction in 1934)

Recent Developments

• The Cobell Land Buy-Back Program has purchased and consolidated over 3 million fractional land interests across dozens of reservations since 2013, with the $1.5B fund largely spent; the program formally ended in 2022, though some residual purchases continue
• McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) confirmed that the Muscogee Nation reservation (and subsequently other Oklahoma reservations) was never disestablished — a landmark ruling affecting criminal jurisdiction and land status for millions of acres
• The Biden administration's 2021–2024 Indian affairs agenda prioritized trust land acquisition and implementing McGirt in federal programming
• Trust land acquisition under IRA § 5 remains contested: Carcieri v. Salazar (2009) required tribes to have been "under federal jurisdiction" in 1934 to be eligible; subsequent litigation has addressed the meaning of "under federal jurisdiction" for tribes that lost and later regained federal recognition
• Trump Interior / DOGE BIA cuts — trust land management and IIM accounts at risk (2025): DOGE-driven workforce reductions at the Bureau of Indian Affairs cut approximately 1,000–1,500 BIA employees in early 2025, significantly reducing the agency's capacity for trust land administration, lease management, and IIM account oversight. BIA realty offices — which approve leases, process title transfers, and handle trust land transactions — have faced significant backlogs. For individual Native Americans with IIM accounts, the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) has seen staffing reductions that slow account statements and lease royalty processing. Secretary Doug Burgum's Interior has emphasized energy development on tribal lands (oil, gas, coal) as aligned with Trump's energy dominance agenda, but administrative capacity reductions create practical obstacles to the same energy leasing approvals BIA processes.
• Trump administration narrows trust land acquisition (2025): The Trump Interior has adopted a more restrictive interpretation of BIA's authority to take land into trust under IRA § 5, building on Carcieri v. Salazar constraints. Pending trust land acquisition requests for tribes with complex federal recognition histories are being reviewed under stricter criteria. Tribes in states that have historically opposed trust acquisitions — particularly gaming-related acquisitions — face longer review periods and higher documentation requirements. The shift affects dozens of pending acquisition requests that advanced under the Biden administration's expansive trust acquisition policy.
• McGirt implementation rollback — state jurisdiction claims expand (2025): Following McGirt, Oklahoma and other states have pressed for congressional action to clarify or limit the ruling's scope. The Trump administration has been more receptive to state jurisdiction arguments over Indian Country than the Biden administration. While McGirt itself stands as a Supreme Court precedent, DOJ's posture in related cases and Interior's discretionary decisions on McGirt-adjacent jurisdiction questions have shifted in ways that benefit state authority arguments. Tribes in eastern Oklahoma continue to assert criminal jurisdiction under McGirt but face ongoing friction with state prosecutors and courts.