Sponsors (3)
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Grants Utah state civil courts the ability to hear civil disputes when the Shivwits Band of Paiutes is a party and the dispute arises on the Band’s Indian lands, treats contracts involving the Band or its lands as interstate commerce for federal statutory and federal-question jurisdiction, preserves the Band’s sovereign immunity unless the Band waives it, and modifies a federal Indian leasing provision that applies to the Band. It also defines which lands and tribal entities the law covers and gives a short title for the Act. These changes aim to clarify which courts can hear certain civil and contract cases involving the Band, create federal jurisdiction for many contract disputes, and adjust how federal leasing law applies to the Band’s lands. The law leaves the tribe’s sovereign immunity intact and does not itself authorize spending.
The bill clarifies which Shivwits lands, governing body, leases, and contracts are covered—improving legal certainty and potential economic development—but shifts dispute venues and definitions in ways that can limit tribal court authority and individual remedies, raise costs, and risk environmental
Shivwits Band members and their tribal government get clear legal recognition of which lands are 'Indian lands' and an identified governing body, helping ensure federal protections apply and making it easier for government and courts to identify the official decisionmaker.
Tribal members, local businesses, renters, and developers gain clearer leasing and contracting rules (including explicit coverage of leases), reducing transaction delays and uncertainty and making it easier to finance or develop projects on Band land.
People suing or sued over civil disputes on Shivwits Band lands have a predictable forum because Utah state courts are clarified to have jurisdiction, which can lower travel and litigation costs for nearby litigants.
Some Shivwits members or properties could be excluded from federal protections because the bill ties coverage to narrow definitions (trust or restricted status), leaving those people or lands without the Act's benefits.
Shifting many civil and contract disputes into state or federal forums reduces use of tribal courts and customary processes, risks parallel or conflicting rulings, and can undermine tribal authority over local disputes.
Applying the Federal Arbitration Act and federal arbitration frameworks to Band contracts can force arbitration and limit some parties' access to court, reducing remedies for consumers, employees, tenants, and others.
Introduced April 29, 2025 by Celeste Maloy · Last progress March 17, 2026