This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case involves interpretation of the phrase “now under Federal jurisdiction” in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, with the parties and the Court questioning whether “now” refers to the time of enactment or to the present day.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioners, Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to take land in trust for Indians and using the phrase “members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction.”
The justices asked how to give meaning to the word “now,” questioning whether it should be read as referring to the time of enactment (“then”) or to the present (“now”).
What each side argues
Petitioners’ Position
The petitioners argue that “now” must be given its ordinary, present‑time meaning, and that Congress intended the statute to apply to tribes that are presently under federal jurisdiction.
Respondents’ Position
According to MS. MAYNARD, the respondents contend that the phrase “now under Federal jurisdiction” was meant to refer to the status of tribes at the time the statute was enacted, not to a later, changing condition.
According to Petitioners, they also argue that the Secretary’s authority to take property from a state would strip the state of jurisdiction and give it to a dual sovereign, illustrating the practical effect of the statutory language.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 8177541303303faecae9-r1-890bdffb96a26d67.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.