Yvonne Mattson


Part II of this Comment provides a background on the trust relationship between the U.S. Congress and Indian tribes, while Part III provides an historical analysis of federal policy and attitudes surrounding tribal sovereignty. Part IV discusses State authority over Indian tribes, while Part V briefly discusses the various forms of tribal property and provides a summary of the importance of the power to zone. Part VI discusses jurisprudence on civil regulatory jurisdiction over Indian tribes, specifically, the way in which the two leading cases, United States v. Montana and Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, illustrate why court precedent regarding tribal sovereignty may be hard to reconcile. Part VII asserts that the U.S. Congress must resolve the civil regulatory jurisdiction issue by passing a statute that gives tribal governments exclusive zoning jurisdiction over fee simple reservation lands located within the exterior boundaries of the reservation. Part VIII concludes this Comment, arguing that tribal zoning jurisprudence has failed to satisfactorily resolve the jurisdictional disputes between counties, states, and Indian tribes, and that the U.S. Congress must pass a statute in order to correct the problem.