Treats Tribal courts as "courts of competent jurisdiction" for certain electronic-warrant authorities under the Stored Communications Act, adds Indian Tribes into multiple statutory definitions, and updates rules for warrants and notice related to stored electronic communications. It also expands tribal criminal jurisdiction by defining and including certain controlled-substance and firearms offenses under tribal law authority. Finally, it directs an amendment related to the Bureau of Prisons Tribal Prisoner Program in the Tribal Law and Order Act (specific insertion language not included).
Amend 18 U.S.C. §2711 paragraph (3) to (A) strike “or” at the end of subparagraph (B), (B) redesignate subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D), and (C) insert after subparagraph (B) a new subparagraph (C) that reads: “a Tribal court; or”.
Replace paragraph (4) of 18 U.S.C. §2711 with a definition that says: “the term governmental entity means a department or agency of— (A) the United States; (B) any State or political subdivision thereof; or (C) any Indian Tribe or political subdivision thereof.” Also add paragraph (5) defining “Indian Tribe” by reference to the Secretary of the Interior’s list under the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5131), and paragraph (6) defining “Tribal court” as “a court of general criminal jurisdiction of an Indian Tribe authorized by the law of that Indian Tribe to issue search warrants.”
Amend 18 U.S.C. §2703(a) (contents of communications in electronic storage 180 days or less) by replacing the first sentence. The new text says a governmental entity may require disclosure of such contents only pursuant to a warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and then lists four clause options for what counts as a court of competent jurisdiction: (A) using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; (B) for a State court, using State warrant procedures; (C) for a court-martial or other title 10 proceeding, under section 846 in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President; or (D) for a Tribal court, using the warrant procedures described in section 202(a)(2) of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (25 U.S.C. 1302(a)(2)).
In 18 U.S.C. §2703(b)(1): (A) in subparagraph (A), strike “using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure” and all that follows through and insert “prescribed by the President)”; and (B) in subparagraph (B)(i), insert the phrase “after each place it appears; and” after each listed place it appears (text literal as provided).
In 18 U.S.C. §2703(c): (A) in paragraph (1)(A), strike “using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure” and all that follows through and insert “prescribed by the President)”; and (B) in paragraph (2), in the undesignated matter following subparagraph (F), insert the phrase “after each place it appears.” (text literal as provided).
Who is affected and how:
Tribal governments and Tribal courts: Gain clearer statutory recognition under the SCA as courts that can issue or be treated like "courts of competent jurisdiction" for certain electronic-warrant processes. Tribes also gain expanded criminal jurisdiction over specified drug- and firearm-related offenses. This strengthens Tribal sovereignty over law enforcement and prosecution on Tribal lands but requires courts and agencies to implement new procedures.
Tribal law enforcement and prosecutors: Will be able to initiate or pursue investigations and prosecutions involving the newly defined controlled-substance and firearms offenses. They will also be able to seek electronic-evidence warrants under the SCA framework recognized for Tribal courts. This may increase caseloads and require training, evidence-handling procedures, and coordination with service providers and higher courts.
Individuals on Tribal lands (suspected offenders and victims): May see more cases prosecuted in Tribal court for drug and firearm offenses that previously might have been handled by federal or state authorities. Outcomes (charging, plea, sentencing) will depend on Tribal code and sentencing authority.
Federal and state law enforcement and prosecutors: Must coordinate with Tribal counterparts more frequently on warrants, evidence requests, and jurisdictional decisions. Some cases that federal/state authorities would have handled may shift to Tribal jurisdiction, affecting intergovernmental workflows.
Electronic service providers/communications companies: Will need to recognize Tribal-court warrants and comply with updated SCA definitions and procedures when served, particularly for electronic communications in storage 180 days or less. Providers may need new internal processes to verify and respond to Tribal-court authorizations.
Bureau of Prisons / Tribal Prisoner Program stakeholders: Section 3 signals a change to the Tribal Prisoner Program, but without the inserted text the operational impact (eligibility, transfers, services) is unknown; stakeholders should expect follow-up guidance once language is finalized.
Potential consequences and resource needs:
Updated 2 days ago
Last progress May 1, 2025 (9 months ago)
Last progress June 5, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on June 5, 2025 by Richard Ray Larsen
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
PROTECT Act of 2025
Updated 2 days ago
Last progress June 5, 2025 (8 months ago)