The National Tribal Justice Resource Center has a comprehensive and updated Tribal Court Directory.  You can search by court name or state to find all the information provided for the majority of trial and appellate tribal courts in the nation.

Under Public Law 280, affected states received criminal jurisdiction over reservation Indians and those state courts became open to civil litigation that previously had been possible only in tribal or federal courts. In the six states named in Public Law 280, the federal government gave up its special criminal jurisdiction involving Indian perpetrators or victims. Some states abide by Public Law 280, others wrote it into their statutes but do not enforce it, and other states have no mention of Public Law 280 in their statutes.  The most recent information concerning each state’s Public Law 280 status is found in the Table 33, "Tribal Courts," in State Court Organization, 2004.

Most states do not have a full-faith-and-credit relationship with the tribes and vice versa.  Minnesota lawyers and judges have brought forth the idea of a more equal status between the states and the tribes, but full faith and credit still has not been implemented.

• Barbara Jones, “Full Faith, Credit Rule Is Sought for Tribal Courts,”  Minnesota Lawyer, May 20, 2002.

• Mark Cohen, “Minnesota Supreme Court Rejects Enforcement Proposal for Tribal Courts,”  Minnesota Lawyer, March 10, 2003.

Criminal jurisdiction within Indian Country depends upon the status of the offender, victim, and whether a major crime is at issue. (These rules do not apply to federal crimes of nationwide applicability and specific federal statutory crimes applying only in Indian Country.)
  

The federal government has jurisdiction over Indians that commit the major crimes listed in 18 U.S.C. §1153:  murder, kidnapping, felony under chapter 109A (sexual abuse), assault with intent to commit murder, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, arson, robbery, manslaughter, maiming, incest, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault against person under 16, burglary, felony under 18 U.S.C. §661 (theft).

The tribe also has jurisdiction to prosecute the Indian offender for the enumerated major crimes.  Double Jeopardy does not apply because the tribe is a separate sovereign from the United States.  This assumes that both federal and tribal courts have jurisdiction.

General state civil jurisdiction rules within Indian Country are illustrated in the chart below.  These rules do not cover the full spectrum of possible plaintiffs and defendants, but only those for which there are federal or state decisions mandating a rule.

Tribal courts do have jurisdiction over nonmembers on tribal land but only when the nonmember has voluntarily made a contract or formed a binding relationship with a tribal member.  It is necessary for the tribal courts to have jurisdiction in these cases to preserve self-governance in their community.  When the nonmember in a dispute is a state official acting on behalf of the state, the case usually is brought before the federal court.  If the nonmember is not a state official, jurisdiction usually is in the hands of the state.

Yes, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applies to four types of child-custody proceedings: 1) foster-care placement; 2) adoption; 3) termination of parental rights; and 4) pre-adoption placement.  Under the ICWA, an “Indian child” is a child who is a member of a tribe or is eligible to be a member.  To know whether a child is covered, it is important to know the membership criteria of the affected tribe.

If the Indian child resides or is domiciled within Indian Country, then the tribal court has exclusive jurisdiction.  If a child is a ward of a tribal court, regardless of residency or domicile, the tribal court also has exclusive jurisdiction.  However, even where the state has jurisdiction, the tribe or the Indian parent may request that the case be transferred to tribal court.  The state must transfer it back unless “good cause” exists not to.  The burden to prove “good cause” is on the party opposing the transfer.

Most important, an Indian child, a parent or Indian custodian, or the child’s tribe can petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate a foster-care placement or termination of parental rights by showing a violation of the ICWA requirements.

If the tribal court is a separate institution from the tribal council, the members of the tribe will either nominate tribe members to serve as judges, assuming they meet the eligibility requirements, or they well elect the judges themselves.  If they nominate the judges, the tribal council will then select the tribal judges for a term or to serve indefinitely, providing good behavior. If the tribal council performs the judicial, executive, and legislative duties then the members of the tribal council will also serve as judges.

Jury hearings are rare in the tribal courts because many of the courts are implementing a traditional justice system rather than the adversarial justice system.  The courts focus more on meditation and reconciliation, especially since they are dealing with lesser charges, such as minor alcohol offenses and custody cases.  The practical aspects of having a jury in an understaffed and underfunded court would also be difficult.  Multiple tribal codes have a jury option, but it is rarely requested.

The codes are usually a combination of traditional law, village ordinances, state law and federal law.  Although the American Indian tribes have used traditional law for centuries, it is difficult for them to codify the traditional law; so, ordinances and established, codified law is used.  The codes are a combination of traditional and western law, and the tribal courts strive to arrive at outcomes that preserve the traditional values of their tribe, such as cultural preservation and community cohesiveness.

The federal government provides competitive and noncompetitive grants to tribal courts as well as to American Indian reservations in general, which can be used to support the tribal court system.  For example, the 2002 Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative Budget allotted $7.9 million to assist tribal judicial systems.

Profit and nonprofit organizations also publicize grants for tribal courts.  The tribal government can garner financial resources from fines, assessments, business revenues, and taxation, which can be directed toward improving the court system.  Finally, the tribal court can share facilities with other tribal government institutions.  Though the vast majority of courts are underfunded, there are some resources available.