Background & Facts
In 1963, Washington State enacted RCW 37.12, a statute that selectively assumed P.L. 280 jurisdiction over the Yakima Reservation. Unlike California's blanket 1953 assumption, Washington's law conditioned full jurisdictional assumption on tribal consent — but only with respect to certain land categories. On non-trust fee land within the reservation, Washington asserted broad jurisdiction; on tribal trust land, jurisdiction was limited to eight enumerated subject areas (e.g., compulsory school attendance, motor vehicle operation, public assistance) unless the tribe consented to more.
The Yakima Nation never consented to expanded jurisdiction. The tribe challenged Washington's statute on equal protection and due process grounds, arguing that the partial, checkerboard jurisdictional scheme was unconstitutional and that the entire framework violated the principles of tribal sovereignty.
The case forced the Supreme Court to confront the structural relationship between P.L. 280, the 1968 ICRA consent amendment, and the constitutional limits of state authority over reservations.
The Court's Holding
The Court upheld Washington's selective assumption statute, finding it did not violate equal protection. But more importantly for the consent framework, the Court explicitly acknowledged the 1968 ICRA amendment requiring tribal consent for any future P.L. 280 assumptions, and treated tribal consent as the constitutionally significant pivot for state jurisdiction.
Key Holding:
A state's assumption of P.L. 280 jurisdiction may be valid where the state's own statute conditioned that assumption on tribal consent. The 1968 ICRA amendment is binding going forward — tribal consent is the prerequisite for any new assumption, and where consent is withheld, jurisdiction does not attach.
Key Language
"In 1968, Congress amended § 7 of Pub. L. 280 to provide that no further assumption of jurisdiction by States would be effective without the consent of the Indian tribes affected. The Yakima Nation had not consented to any further assumption of jurisdiction beyond that already in place under Washington's 1963 statute."
The Court repeatedly framed the post-1968 jurisdictional architecture around consent. Even while upholding Washington's pre-1968 partial assumption, the Court emphasized that the consent amendment was now the controlling rule for any expansion or new jurisdiction.
How This Proves P.L. 280 Requires Consent
Yakima is the case where the Supreme Court made consent the structural pivot of P.L. 280 analysis. Even when the Court upheld a state assumption, it did so by treating the 1968 amendment as a binding constitutional waypoint — the moment after which consent becomes non-negotiable.
For California tribes, the implication is direct: California's 1953 blanket assumption is the polar opposite of Washington's framework. Washington at least conditioned assumption on tribal consent for trust land beyond the eight enumerated categories. California consulted no one, conditioned nothing on consent, and imposed plenary jurisdiction over all California Indian Country in a single sweeping enactment.
If the Yakima Nation could resist Washington's partial assumption because it had not consented to expansion, then California tribes can resist California's total assumption because they never consented to any of it.
- 1. Yakima confirms 1968 ICRA's consent requirement is binding constitutional law.
- 2. The Court treated tribal consent as the dispositive question for jurisdictional disputes.
- 3. Even partial state assumptions are scrutinized through the consent lens.
- 4. California's total, unconditioned 1953 assumption fails this test by an order of magnitude.
Related Cases
- Kennerly v. District Court (1971) — Strict enforcement of the consent requirement
- Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering (1984/1986) — SCOTUS confirmed consent requirement twice
- Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 — Source of the consent requirement
- Yakama Nation Retrocession (2015) — Washington later retroceded jurisdiction over Yakama