Law on Native Land: The Hopson Case
In 2025, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in United States v. Hopson that clarified the limits of federal criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country. The court held that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over misdemeanor assaults committed by one tribal citizen against another on reservation land. Instead, those cases fall exclusively to tribal courts unless Congress has specifically included the offense in the Major Crimes Act.
This decision reinforced the authority of tribal governments over lower-level criminal matters and limited federal reach in Indian-on-Indian cases.
The case background
Hopson, a member of a federally recognized tribe, was charged in federal court with misdemeanor assault against another Native person. The incident occurred within reservation boundaries. Federal prosecutors argued that they had authority to bring the case, pointing to general statutes governing assaults.
Hopson’s defense argued that because the crime was a misdemeanor and not listed in the Major Crimes Act, the federal government lacked jurisdiction. Instead, the case properly belonged in tribal court.
What the court decided
The Tenth Circuit agreed with the defense. It held that:
The Major Crimes Act provides the exclusive list of offenses where the federal government has jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians in Indian Country
Misdemeanor assault is not on that list
Congress has never expanded federal authority to include such misdemeanors, which means jurisdiction remains with tribal governments
The court therefore vacated the federal conviction.
Why this ruling matters
The Hopson decision is significant for several reasons:
✔️ It draws a clear line between the authority of federal and tribal courts in Indian Country
✔️ It strengthens the role of tribal courts by confirming their exclusive jurisdiction over Indian-on-Indian misdemeanors
✔️ It limits federal prosecutors from overreaching into matters that Congress has not expressly given them authority to pursue
For defendants, this means some cases will be resolved in tribal forums rather than federal court. For tribal governments, it affirms their power to handle day-to-day criminal matters among their citizens.
The bigger picture
Hopson fits into the post-McGirt era of jurisdictional realignment. Where other cases like Castro-Huerta and Deo v. Parish have bolstered state authority, Hopson strengthens tribal sovereignty by making clear that certain crimes fall solely within tribal jurisdiction.
It also highlights the importance of Congress. If lawmakers want federal courts to handle additional crimes, they must explicitly expand the Major Crimes Act. Until then, tribal courts remain the proper venue for misdemeanor assaults and other non-enumerated offenses.
Key takeaway
United States v. Hopson underscores that tribal courts are not just symbolic. They are the only courts with jurisdiction over many Indian-on-Indian crimes in Indian Country. By drawing this line, the Tenth Circuit reinforced the independence of tribal justice systems and reminded all parties that federal authority is limited to what Congress has granted.
The next post in Law on Native Land will move from the courts back to city and state policy. We will look at the City of Tulsa’s agreements with tribal nations and the lawsuits challenging municipal assertions of criminal jurisdiction.