Convincing the State: Funding Shortfalls Five of the 13 interviewees who spoke about the factors that persuaded the state to agree said th...

  Tribal Community Resistance The tribal community does not always support retrocession unanimously. While there was no specific question di...

  Obstacles to Successful Retrocession According to ICRA, tribes cannot petition directly to the Department of the Interior for retrocession...

  Sovereignty While tribes retain concurrent criminal jurisdiction in many areas under PL 280, that jurisdiction has been impeded by PL 280....

 Police Brutality Although only 4 respondents reported that police brutality was the impetus for retrocession, the accusation is serious eno...

 Lessons from the Case Studies The five case studies of Omaha, Winnebago, Salish & Kootenai, Ely Colony, and Tulalip retrocessions, as w...

  Tulalip Tribes: The Tulalip Tribes, located along the Pacific coast approximately 30 miles north of Seattle, became subject to state juris...

 Anticipating an increased workload associated with its assumption of exclusive criminal misdemeanor jurisdiction over reservation Indians (...

  Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes: In 1963, pursuant to Public Law 280, the Montana Legislature introduced a bill that would authori...

  Further development is shown in other areas of the reservation that demonstrate the capacity of the Winnebago Tribal Government. By 1985, ...

Omaha and Winnebago Tribes, Nebraska: To understand the factors contributing to Nebraska’s eventual retrocession of jurisdiction over the Om...

  Retrocession from Public Law 2801 Before Congress amended Public Law 280 (PL 280) in 1968, tribes could be subjected to state criminal jur...