One of the key questions in the low-rent housing program for Indians, after the basic determination that Indian tribes may be eligible for Federal aid under the USHAct, has been the effect of Public Law 280 en tribal eligibility. This question has now been resolved.

Public Law 280, 83rd Congress, as amended (18 U.8.0. 1162 and 28 V.8.0. 1360), confers jurisdiction on the States of Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin with respect to criminal offenses and civil causes of action arising on Tadian Reservations which are located within the borders of those States. The Act also provides that other states may assume such criminal and civil jurisdiction by affirmative legislative action. This has been done by the States of Washington and Nevada.

As a result of an inquiry received from a tribe located in Alaska, we presented to the Solicitor, Department of Interior, the question as to the effect of Public Law 280 on the legal capacity of Indian tribes to participate in the low-rent housing program, which he has now answered. On the basis of the Solicitor's opinion and a related letter of July 2, 1962, from the Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs, it is now clear that this Act does not preclude an otherwise eligible tribe (see Commissioner's Circular dated 12-15-61) from participating in the low-rent housing program.

The pertinent provisions of Public Law 280 are:

18 U.S.C. 1162(a) Each of the States or Territories listed in
the following table shall have jurisdiction over offenses com-
mitted by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country listed
opposite the name of the State or Territory to the same extent
that such State or Territory has jurisdiction over offenses commit-
ted elsewhere within the State or Territory, and the criminal laws
of such State or Territory shall have the same force and effect
within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State
or Territory:

45-306 - 75 - 15

28 U.S.C. 1360

(a) Each of the States or Territories listed in the following
table shall have jurisdiction over civil causes of action
between Indians or to which Indians are parties which arise
in the areas of Indian country listed opposite the name of
the State or Territory to the same extent that such State or
Territory has jurisdiction over other civil causes of action,
and those civil laws of such State or Territory that are of
general application to private persons or private property
shall have the same force and effect within such Indian
country as they have elsewhere within the State or Territory:

(c) Any tribal ordinance or custom heretofore or hereafter
adopted by an Indian tribe, band, or community in the exer-
cise of any authority which it may possess shall, if not
inconsistent with any applicable civil law of the State,
be given full force and effect in the determination of civil
causes of action pursuant to this section. * * *

The Solicitor's ruling established two points concerning Indian tribes whose area is affected by Public Law 280:

1. An Indian tribe which had the power to exercise governmental
jurisdiction over its territory before Public Law 280 was
enacted did not lose such power as a result of that enact-
ment. This view is in accord with the above cited language
of 28 U.S.C. 1360(c), which clearly shows that the Indian
governments are expected to continue to exercise their
general lawmaking powers.

2. Tribal governing bodies have the power to enforce the building
codes and zoning ordinances which is required for a workable
program. Although Public Law 280 apparently deprives the
governing body of the power to impose criminal sanctions, it
would still be able to exercise its proprietary powers (e.g.
expulsion of members from the reservation) to achieve com-
pliance with its enactments. This view assumes that tribal
low-rent housing projects will be located on tribally owned
lands.

The language contained in 28 U.S.C. 1360(a), which states that civil laws of the State that are of general application to private persons or private property are to have the same force and effect within Indian country, could raise a question as to whether a State Housing Authority Law is applicable to Indian Reservations. We think it is questionable whether a housing authority law is a law of general application "to private persons or private property". However, even if it were, this would not negate the gov

authority established pursuant to State law would also be legally empowered to develop low-rent housing projects on Indian reservations within the State. As a general procedure, however, it is recommended that the governing body of a tribe whose area is affected by Public Law 280 should advise the appropriate State law housing authority (if one has been organized) of its plans to create a housing authority for the Reservation. Any questions raised as to the power of the tribe to pursue such a program should be referred to the Central Office Legal Division.

Beyl Buntin

General Counsel