## Facts

- Ann Walker, a member of the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, drove on a public road within the Omaha Indian Reservation on August 24, 1987, struck a vehicle or persons, and killed two Omaha tribal members.
- The Omaha Tribe charged Walker in Omaha Tribal Court with two counts of criminal homicide under the Omaha Tribal Code.
- Walker moved to dismiss in tribal court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the offense fell within exclusive federal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153).
- Nebraska had exercised criminal jurisdiction in Indian country under Public Law 280 (18 U.S.C. § 1162), then retroceded most of that jurisdiction in Thurston County to the United States while retaining jurisdiction for offenses involving operation of motor vehicles on public roads or highways.
- The tribal court denied Walker’s jurisdictional motion; Walker then sought federal habeas relief under the Indian Civil Rights Act (25 U.S.C. § 1303).

## Issues

1. Whether the Major Crimes Act confers exclusive federal jurisdiction over a tribal member’s conduct equivalent to an enumerated major crime, thereby divesting a tribal court of jurisdiction to prosecute under tribal law.
2. Whether Public Law 280, and Nebraska’s retrocession with a motor-vehicle carve-out, removed or limited the Omaha Tribal Court’s authority to prosecute this motor-vehicle-related homicide occurring on a public road within the reservation.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court and vacated the writ of habeas corpus.
- The court held the Omaha Tribal Court retained jurisdiction to prosecute Walker for criminal homicide under tribal law.
- The court rejected the view that the Major Crimes Act, by itself, divests tribal courts of jurisdiction over offenses equivalent to those listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1153.
- The court treated Nebraska’s retained Public Law 280 jurisdiction for motor-vehicle offenses on public roads as consistent with overlapping jurisdiction, not as a basis for exclusive federal jurisdiction or for extinguishing tribal authority.

## Legal Principles

- Federal jurisdiction created by the Major Crimes Act does not eliminate tribal criminal jurisdiction over tribal members absent clear congressional withdrawal.
- Public Law 280’s grant of state criminal jurisdiction in Indian country does not, without explicit statutory direction, divest tribal courts of power to prosecute tribal members for violations of tribal law.
- Retrocession of Public Law 280 jurisdiction, including a state’s retention of a defined category (here, motor-vehicle offenses on public roads), can yield concurrent state, federal, and tribal authority rather than exclusivity in any one forum.
- Federal habeas relief under 25 U.S.C. § 1303 is unavailable where the tribal court is exercising lawful jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that neither the Major Crimes Act nor the Public Law 280 retrocession framework displaced the Omaha Tribe’s criminal jurisdiction over Walker’s tribal-law homicide charges arising from a motor-vehicle incident on a public road within the reservation, so the federal habeas writ was vacated and the tribal prosecution could proceed.


Walker v. Rushing, 898 F.2d 672 (8th Cir. 1990)