the one they have established for themselves.12 As the present record illustrates, it would create a substantial risk of conflicting adjudications affecting the custody of the child and would cause a corresponding decline in the authority of the Tribal Court.

No federal statute sanctions this interference with tribal self-government. Montana has not been granted, nor has it assumed, civil jurisdiction over the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, either under the Act of Aug. 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 588, or under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 78, 25 U. S. C. § 1321 et seq. And contrary to the Runsaboves' contention, 25 U. S. C. § 372a 13 manifests no congressional intent to

12 Neither the constitution and bylaws nor the ordinance of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe manifests an intent to cede jurisdiction to Montana. This factor alone distinguishes the decisions upon which the Montana Supreme Court relied. Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, 163 Mont. 445, 450-451, 517 P. 2d 893, 896, cert. denied, 419 U. S. 847 (1974); State ex rel. Iron Bear v. District Court, 162 Mont. 335, 337-338, 342-343, 512 P. 2d 1292, 1294, 1297 (1973). We do not decide, however, whether an enactment of a tribal council prior to the effective date of Pub. L. 280, Act of Aug. 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 588, may be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the state courts. See Kennerly v. District Court of Montana, 400 U. S. 423, 426-429 (1971) (per curiam); McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, supra, at 179–180.

13 Act of July 8, 1940, c. 555, §§ 1, 2, 54 Stat. 746. The statute provides:

"[SEC. 1] [I]n probate matters under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, no person shall be recognized as an heir of a deceased Indian by virtue of an adoption

"(1) Unless such adoption shall have been-
"(a) by a judgment or decree of a State court;

"(b) by a judgment or decree of an Indian court;

"(c) by a written adoption approved by the superintendent of the agency having jurisdiction over the tribe of which either the adopted child or the adoptive parent is a member, and duly recorded in a book kept by the superintendent for that purpose; or

"(d) by an adoption in accordance with a procedure established

confer jurisdiction upon state courts over adoptions by Indians. The statute is concerned solely with the documentation necessary to prove adoption by an Indian in proceedings before the Secretary of the Interior. It recognizes adoption "by a judgment or decree of a State court" as one means of documentation but nowhere addresses the jurisdiction of state courts to render such judgments or decrees. The statute does not confer jurisdiction upon the Montana courts. See McClanahan, 411 U. S., at 174-175; Williams, 358 U. S., at 220–221.

Since the adoption proceeding is appropriately characterized as litigation arising on the Indian reservation, the jurisdiction of the Tribal Court is exclusive. The Runsaboves have not sought to defend the state court's jurisdiction by arguing that any substantial part of the conduct supporting the adoption petition took place off the reservation. Cf. DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U. S. 425, 428-430, and n. 3 (1975).1+

by the tribal authority, recognized by the Department of the Interior, of the tribe either of the adopted child or the adoptive parent, and duly recorded in a book kept by the tribe for that purpose; or

"(2) Unless such adoption shall have been recognized by the Department of the Interior prior to the effective date of this Act or in the distribution of the estate of an Indian who has died prior to that date: Provided, That an adoption by Indian custom made prior to the effective date of this Act may be made valid by recordation with the superintendent if both the adopted child and the adoptive parent are still living, if the adoptive parent requests that the adoption be recorded, and if the adopted child is an adult and makes such a request or the superintendent on behalf of a minor child approves of the recordation.

"SEC. 2. This Act shall not apply with respect to the distribution of the estates of Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes or the Osage Tribe in the State of Oklahoma, or with respect to the distribution of estates of Indians who have died prior to the effective date of this Act."

14 The Runsaboves alleged as grounds for adoption that petitioner

The remaining points may be dealt with briefly. The Runsaboves argue that the ordinances of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe could not deprive the Montana courts of the jurisdiction they exercised over tribal matters prior to organization of the Tribe in 1935. The tribal ordinance conferring jurisdiction on the Tribal Court was authorized by § 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U. S. C. § 476. Consequently, it implements an overriding federal policy which is clearly adequate to defeat state jurisdiction over litigation involving reservation Indians. Accordingly, even if we assume that the Montana courts properly exercised adoption jurisdiction prior to the organization of the Tribe, a question we do not decide, that jurisdiction has now been pre-empted.

Finally, we reject the argument that denying the Runsaboves access to the Montana courts constitutes impermissible racial discrimination. The exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribal Court does not derive from the race of the plaintiff but rather from the quasi-sovereign status of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe under federal law. Moreover, even if a jurisdictional holding occasionally results in denying an Indian plaintiff a forum to which a non

had abandoned Ivan and given custody to Josephine Runsabove and that petitioner had not supported the child for over a year. Since all parties resided on the reservation at all relevant times, and since the reservation has not been partially terminated, cf. DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U. S., at 429 n. 3, it appears that none of the acts giving rise to the adoption proceedings occurred off the reservation. The Runsaboves do not contend otherwise. They do, however, point out that the birth of Ivan and the marriage and divorce of his parents occurred off the reservation. These facts do not affect our conclusion that the adoption proceeding is within the Tribal Court's exclusive jurisdiction. In a proceeding such as an adoption, which determines the permanent status of litigants, it is appropriate to predicate jurisdiction on the residence of the litigants rather than the location of particular incidents of marginal relevance, at best.

Indian has access, such disparate treatment of the Indian is justified because it is intended to benefit the class of which he is a member by furthering the congressional policy of Indian self-government. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 551-555 (1974).

The motion of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted. The petition for certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Syllabus

424 U.S.

UNITED STATES v. TESTAN ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS

No. 74-753. Argued November 12, 1975-Decided March 2, 1976 Respondent Government trial attorneys with civil service grade GS-13 classifications requested their employing agency to reclassify their positions to grade GS-14, contending that their duties and responsibilities met the requirements for the higher grade and were identical to those of other trial attorneys classified as GS-14 in another agency, and that under the principle of "equal pay for substantially equal work" prescribed in the Classification Act, they were entitled to the higher classification. But their agency, and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on appeal, denied reclassification. Respondents then sued the Government in the Court of Claims, seeking reclassification as of the date of the first administrative denial of their request, and each seeking backpay, computed at the difference between his GS-13 salary and his claimed GS-14 salary, from that date. The trial judge denied backpay but held that the CSC's refusal to reclassify respondents to GS-14 was arbitrary and that respondents were entitled to an order remanding the case to the CSC with directions so to reclassify respondents. The court en banc, while disapproving the trial judge's recommendation that the court was empowered to direct reclassification, held that if the CSC were to determine that it had made an erroneous classification the court was authorized to award money damages for backpay lost, that the CSC's refusal to compare respondents' positions with those of the other trial attorneys was arbitrary and capricious, and that the court had power to order the CSC to reconsider its classification decision. Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the CSC to make the comparison and to report the result to the court. Held: 1. The Tucker Act, which merely confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims whenever a substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages exists, does not in itself support the action taken by the Court of Claims in this case. Pp. 397-398.

2. Neither the Classification Act nor the Back Pay Act creates a substantive right in respondents to backpay for the period of the claimed wrongful classification. Pp. 398-407.

205 Ct. Cl. 330, 499 F. 2d 690, reversed and remanded.