In Commissioner of Taxation v. Brun, 286 Minn. 43, 174 N.W.2d 120 (1970), where the decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court and of the United States Supreme Court bearing on the question are reviewed, we said ( 286 Minn. 44, 47, 174 N.W.2d 121, 123): See, In re Settlement of Beaulieu, 264 Minn. 406, 119 N.W.2d 25 (1963); State v. Lussier, 269 Minn. 176, 130 N.W.2d 484 (1964); Sigana v. Bailey, 282 Minn. 367, 164 N.W.2d 886 (1969); Note, 39 Minn. L.Rev. 853. See, also, Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 8 L.ed. 483 (1832); Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 22 S.Ct. 650, 46 L.ed. 954 (1902); Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, p. 122 (1942); United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 6 S.Ct. 1109, 30 L.ed. 228 (1886); McClanahan v. Arizona, 411 U.S. 164, 93 S.Ct. 1257, 36 L.ed.2d 129 (1973). "The Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians is an American Indian tribe located on the Red Lake Reservation within the boundaries of the State of Minnesota. The band has self-government under their current revised constitution and bylaws approved November 10, 1958. Under the constitution and bylaws the jurisdiction of the Red Lake Band extends to all lands of the reservation within the state.
See United States v. Harvey, 701 F.2d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 1983) ( 25 U.S.C. § 311 is not a general grant of jurisdiction to the states over the land constituting the right-of-way); Ortiz-Barraza v. United States, 512 F.2d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1975) (rights-of-way running through a reservation remain part of the reservation and within the territorial jurisdiction of the tribal police). See also Enriquez v. Superior Court, in and for County of Pima, 115 Ariz. 342, 565 P.2d 522 (Ct.App. 1977); Application of Denetclaw, 83 Ariz. 299, 320 P.2d 697 (1958); Sigana v. Bailey, 282 Minn. 367, 164 N.W.2d 886 (1969); Schantz v. White Lightning, 231 N.W.2d 812 (N.D. 1975); Gourneau v. Smith, 207 N.W.2d 256 (N.D. 1973). Cf. State v. Dugan, 52 N.C. App. 136, 277 S.E.2d 842 (1981). The state argues that, even if title was not transferred when the Highway 47 right-of-way was originally granted, the Termination Plan [ see 26 Fed. Reg. 3726 (1961)] effectuated a transfer of title of the right-of-way to the state and, therefore, did not transfer the land encompassed by the right-of-way to the tribal corporation.
In tort cases in non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions, the general rule appears to be that an Indian defendant cannot be sued in state court for a cause of action arising on the reservation even if there be no tribal forum available. Schantz v. White Lightning, 502 F.2d 67 (8th Cir. 1974); Poitra v. Demarrias, 502 F.2d 23 (8th Cir. 1974); Valdez v. Johnson, 68 N.M. 476, 362 P.2d 1004 (1961); Nelson v. Dubois, 232 N.W.2d 54 (N.D. 1975); Gourneau v. Smith, 207 N.W.2d 256 (N.D. 1973); Sigana v. Bailey, 282 Minn. 367, 164 N.W.2d 886 (1969). However, it has been held that jurisdiction exists in a state court as to a suit brought by an Indian plaintiff against a non-Indian defendant for an on-reservation tort.
In a number of cases we have recognized instances where this state lacks authority to govern the affairs of those within the reservation. For example, in Red Lake Band, we held the state was required to honor a motor vehicle registration ordinance adopted by the tribal council; in Commissioner of Taxation v. Brun, 286 Minn. 43, 174 N.W.2d 120 (1970), we held the state could not impose taxes on members of the Band for earnings from employment on the reservation; in Sigana v. Bailey, 282 Minn. 367, 164 N.W.2d 886 (1969), we held a state court did not have jurisdiction over an action arising out of a collision between automobiles owned by members of the Band on a highway within the reservation maintained by the State Department of Highways; and In re Settlement of Beaulieu, 264 Minn. 406, 119 N.W.2d 25 (1963), we held the jurisdiction necessary for enforcement of poor-relief laws did not extend to an enrolled member of the Band while living on the reservation. Here defendants assert the political committee's activities occurred within the confines of the reservation and, consequently, the state lacks jurisdiction to impose the requirements of Chapter 10A on its activities.
This case can be distinguished because the transaction occurred entirely on the reservation and the state had not acquired jurisdiction under Public Law 280. Other cases involving torts or transactions entirely on the reservation can be distinguished on the same basis. See Sigana v. Bailey, 282 Minn. 367, 164 N.W.2d 886 (1969) (tribe excepted from Public Law 280); Security State Bank v. Pierre, 161 Mont. 350, 511 P.2d 325 (1973) (business transaction entirely reservation). In conclusion, state jurisdiction in this case does not interfere with the right of the Indians on the Fond du Lac Reservation to make their own laws and be ruled by them.
In State v. Lussier, 269 Minn. 176, 130 N.W.2d 484, we held that the state is without jurisdiction to prosecute a member of the Red Lake Band for burglary against the property of an Indian or another person within the Red Lake Reservation regardless of the ownership of the plot where the offense occurred. Finally, in Sigana v. Bailey, 282 Minn. 367, 164 N.W.2d 886, we held that the courts of the State of Minnesota have no jurisdiction over a tort action arising out of a collision between automobiles owned by enrolled members of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians which occurred within the territorial limits of the Red Lake Indian Reservation, even though the collision occurred on a state trunk highway which is maintained by the Minnesota Department of Highways. For an earlier discussion of the rights of tribal Indians, see Opsahl v. Johnson, 138 Minn. 42, 163 N.W. 988. While its ruling is not a judicial decision, the Minnesota Department of Employment Security has determined that members of the Red Lake Band of Indians are not liable to make contributions to the Minnesota unemployment fund.
As a general rule, Minnesota courts have no jurisdiction over matters on Indian reservations unless Congress specifically grants such jurisdiction to the state. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. State, 311 Minn. 241, 247, 248 N.W.2d 722, 726 (1976); Sigana v. Bailey, 282 Minn. 367, 369, 164 N.W.2d 886, 888 (1960); Recent Case, 4 Wm. Mitchell L.Rev. 454, 455-56 (1978). In 1953, Congress passed Public Law 280 granting Minnesota general jurisdiction over criminal and civil actions on Indian reservations.
The Red Lake Chippewa Band and the land under its control is an autonomous entity geographically located within Minnesota but legally outside its jurisdiction. Commissioner of Taxation v. Brun, 286 Minn. 43, 46, 174 N.W.2d 120, 122 (1970); Sigana v. Bailey, 282 Minn. 367, 369, 164 N.W.2d 886, 888 (1969); In re Settlement of Beaulieu, 264 Minn. 406, 413-15, 119 N.W.2d 25, 30-31 (1963). However, the state does have authority to enforce its laws in a nondiscriminatory fashion against Indians off the reservation, absent specific federal law to the contrary.
ANALYSIS It has been held that the state has no jurisdiction over criminal or civil actions arising between Indians residing on the Red Lake Reservation. Sigana v. Bailey, 282 Minn. 367, 369, 164 N.W.2d 886, 888 (1969). Jourdain, who was represented by counsel, contested subject-matter jurisdiction.
ANALYSIS The state of Minnesota has no jurisdiction, civil or criminal, over Indians residing in an Indian reservation absent an express grant of jurisdiction by Congress. Sigana v. Bailey, 282 Minn. 367, 164 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1969). Congress has granted to the state of Minnesota jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians and over civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties arising in all Indian country within the state, except the Red Lake Reservation. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1162 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1360.