how the South Dakota tribal leaders can ban someone from their land, and is it enforceable?
In: Other
Many — but not all — Native American tribes were long ago (between the 18th and early 20th centuries) recognized by the US federal government as sovereign nations, and the US entered into treaties with these tribes as they would with any other sovereign nation.
As a part of these treaties, the tribal nations were given land (commonly known today as “reservations”) that they have sovereign authority over. That’s why they can ban people from their lands. It’s also why, say, tribal nations can run casinos on their land even if casinos are against the law in the state in which the reservation exists.
Technically the term is “domestic dependent nations,” because members of these tribes are both American citizens *and* members of their sovereign tribal nation, and the land is both Federally-protected lands (and part of the USA) as well as sovereign tribal domains.
But on that tribal land, the tribe has sovereignty and self-determination, and the rights that non-tribal members have on that land is dependent on the treaty signed between the US government and the tribal nation.
For example, state/local law enforcement rarely has jurisdiction on tribal lands in its state, unless invited by the tribe to participate. Federal law enforcement may have a bit more leeway, but that’s still determined by the treaty with the tribal nation.
Different tribes have different treaties, so there may be some variance, but over the last 100-150 years it has mostly been normalized under various Federal laws administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (part of the Department of the Interior).
Latest Answers