Law360 (October 6, 2026, 9:23 PM EDT) -- Determining who can prosecute crimes committed in Indian Country requires navigating a complicated mix of tribal, state and federal authority, a Michigan federal prosecutor told law enforcement officials and advocates Tuesday at a statewide summit focused on missing and murdered Indigenous people and human trafficking.

Roy R. Kranz, an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said prosecutors confronted with a crime connected to tribal lands must answer several questions before determining where a case belongs: whether the offense occurred in Indian Country, whether the suspect and victim are legally considered Native American, and what crime was committed.

"When I get a case, there's four questions that I have to go through and figure out, and you ask them in this order," Kranz said during his presentation on Indian Country jurisdiction. "You want to know: Did it happen in Indian Country?"

The answers can determine whether a case goes to tribal, state or federal court, or whether more than one government has authority to prosecute.

Kranz spoke during Michigan's Missing and Murdered Indigenous People and Human Trafficking Summit, a two-day gathering hosted by the Michigan Department of Attorney General's MMIP Task Force and the Michigan Human Trafficking Commission.

The summit brings together tribal, federal, state and local law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, service providers, tribal leaders and others.

Kranz said the Eastern District of Michigan works primarily with the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, whose reservation includes land around Mount Pleasant. The Western District, by comparison, encompasses numerous federally recognized tribes.

Whether a crime occurred in Indian Country is the threshold question because federal jurisdiction over many offenses involving Native Americans depends on where the conduct occurred, Kranz said.

"If it didn't happen in Indian Country, then we have no jurisdiction," Kranz said of Indian Country offenses, noting that generally applicable federal crimes such as certain firearms, drug, human trafficking and child pornography offenses can still be prosecuted federally regardless of whether they occurred on tribal land.

Kranz said prosecutors once had to examine individual parcels of land within the Isabella Reservation near Mount Pleasant to determine whether a crime occurred in Indian Country. That changed following a 2010 settlement resolving litigation between the Saginaw Chippewa tribe and Michigan over jurisdictional boundaries and other issues.

"Now any land within the outer boundaries is now Indian land, recognized by the state, by the tribe and by the U.S. government," Kranz said.

Determining whether a defendant or victim is legally considered Native American presents a separate question.

Kranz said courts look for some degree of Native American blood connected to a federally recognized tribe as well as recognition of the person as Native American by the federal government or a tribe. Tribal enrollment is the most important consideration, although enrollment is not necessarily required.

Jurisdiction becomes particularly complicated once the status of both the accused and victim is considered.

If neither the defendant nor victim is Native American, a crime committed in Indian Country generally falls under state jurisdiction, Kranz said. If a non-Native American defendant commits a crime against a Native American victim, state and federal jurisdiction may both be available.

For a Native American defendant, tribal jurisdiction generally exists, while federal jurisdiction can depend on whether the conduct falls under the Major Crimes Act. The federal law covers offenses including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, sexual assault, certain felony assaults, child abuse, arson, burglary and robbery.

Federal prosecutors also sometimes rely on the Assimilative Crimes Act, which allows certain state criminal laws to be applied in federal prosecutions when Congress has not enacted a federal statute covering the conduct.

Kranz pointed to burglary and some child abuse offenses as examples where Michigan criminal statutes can fill gaps in federal law.

But overlapping jurisdiction doesn't mean prosecutors routinely bring parallel cases.

"It's a case-by-case discussion between the prosecutors," Kranz said.

Tribal criminal authority also has expanded in recent years.

Kranz said federal law initially allowed participating tribes to exercise jurisdiction over certain non-Native American defendants accused of domestic or dating violence against Native American victims.

Congress expanded that authority in 2022 to encompass additional offenses, although tribes must meet federal requirements concerning defense counsel, judges and jury pools before exercising that jurisdiction.

Kranz said relatively few of the nation's federally recognized tribes have implemented that expanded authority, in part because of the resources required.

Law enforcement agreements can help officers navigate the jurisdictional maze even when it is unclear at the outset where a case ultimately will be prosecuted, Kranz said.

Under arrangements stemming from the 2010 settlement, tribal officers can receive county and federal credentials, allowing qualified officers to enforce tribal, state and federal laws.

"If they pull someone over, they can take the case to any of those three courts," Kranz said. "It doesn't change our jurisdiction or where it can be charged, but it allows them to back each other up and not worry about whether or not it's Indian Country or not. That can be figured out later."

Jurisdictional questions were just some of the topics discussed at the summit in hopes of addressing violence against Indigenous people.

Danielle Russo Bennetts of the Michigan Department of Attorney General said the state's MMIP Task Force, launched in 2024, has brought together tribal, federal, state and local prosecutors, police, advocates and human services specialists to identify gaps and strengthen relationships.

"There's an MMIP crisis at hand," Russo Bennetts said.

The task force's work has included clarifying for Michigan law enforcement that personal protection orders issued by tribal courts are immediately enforceable throughout the state, Russo Bennetts said.

The summit is intended to build on those efforts by giving agencies and tribal communities an opportunity to strengthen their relationships and develop coordinated responses to violence, trafficking and missing-person cases.

"I hope for countless exchanges of ideas, so that each of us takes those possibilities with us," Russo Bennetts said during the summit welcome. "Together, we can have the power to make real change for a better future."

--Editing by Kelly Duncan.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.