Hackford v. State of Utah
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 949
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Richard Hackford was cited for traffic offenses on State Road 40 in Wasatch County, Utah (Strawberry Valley Project area), land originally part of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.
- Hackford sought to enjoin Utah’s prosecution, claiming he is an Indian and the offenses occurred in Indian Country, which would preclude state criminal jurisdiction.
- The district court found the Strawberry Valley Project land is no longer part of the reservation and that Hackford is not an Indian under the governing statutes; it denied injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- The Strawberry Valley land was the subject of a 1910 Act that paid the Ute Indians $1.25/acre and stated the Indians’ rights, title, and interest in the lands were extinguished for reclamation purposes.
- Much of the Strawberry Valley land was later incorporated into the Uinta National Forest in 1988; the court held that transfer did not restore reservation (Indian Country) status.
- Because the court concluded the offenses occurred outside Indian Country, it resolved the case against Hackford without reaching his tribal/Indian status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Strawberry Valley Project land remains part of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (i.e., Indian Country) | The 1910 extinguishment did not prevent later restoration; 1988 incorporation into Uinta National Forest could reinstate reservation status | The 1910 Act clearly extinguished tribal title for reclamation; the 1988 forest boundary change did not ‘‘set apart’’ the land as Indian Country | The 1910 Act diminished the reservation as to Strawberry Valley; the land is not Indian Country |
| Whether state courts lack jurisdiction over crimes by Indians in Indian Country | Hackford: if land is Indian Country, state lacks jurisdiction to prosecute him | State: the land is not Indian Country and federal law preserves state jurisdiction over national forests | State jurisdiction applies; Utah may prosecute |
| Whether adding land to a national forest restores reservation status | Hackford: forest inclusion could revive Indian Country status | State: forest designation doesn’t reinstate reservation; Congress did not intend to set land apart for Indian use | Forest inclusion does not restore reservation status |
| Applicability of federal statutes conferring Indian Country protection | Hackford: statutes defining Indian Country should cover the site if reservation status exists | State: site falls outside 18 U.S.C. §1151 definitions because reservation was diminished | 18 U.S.C. §1151 does not apply because land is not Indian Country |
Key Cases Cited
- Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Utah, 790 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 2015) (federal/tribal criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country)
- Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) (only Congress can diminish reservation; requires clear congressional intent)
- Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) (Congress has not granted Utah criminal jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country)
- Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072 (2016) (payment-for-surrender language evidences intent to diminish reservation)
- Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (1991) (Indian Country status depends on land being set apart for Indians under federal superintendence)
- United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978) (definition of lands ‘‘set apart’’ for Indian use)
- United States v. Fields, 516 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2008) (national forest status does not automatically remove state criminal jurisdiction)
- Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah (Ute III), 773 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir. 1985) (Congress explicitly extinguished Ute interest in Strawberry reclamation lands)