S-1574-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
What it does
This bill would amend the Stored Communications Act (SCA) to recognize Tribal courts as "courts of competent jurisdiction," placing them on equal footing with federal and state courts. It would allow Tribal courts with general criminal jurisdiction to issue warrants compelling technology companies and internet service providers to disclose stored electronic communications and records — such as emails, texts, and subscriber data — as part of criminal investigations. Tribal courts would be required to follow the warrant procedures established under the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Who benefits
Federally recognized Indian Tribes (574 in total) and their law enforcement and judicial systems, which would gain a legal tool currently available to federal and state courts. Victims of crimes committed on Tribal lands who may benefit from more effective criminal investigations. Tribal prosecutors and investigators who currently must rely on federal or state authorities to obtain electronic evidence. Tribal community members broadly, who may see improved public safety outcomes from more complete criminal investigations.
Who is hurt
Technology companies and electronic communication service providers, which would face a new class of legally binding warrants and associated compliance costs. Individuals subject to Tribal court criminal investigations, whose stored electronic data could be compelled without going through federal or state courts. Civil liberties advocates concerned about expanding the universe of entities that can compel private digital records. Potentially, individuals who are not Tribal members but whose data could be sought in connection with crimes occurring on Tribal lands.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current gap in the SCA creates a serious and inequitable obstacle to justice on Tribal lands: Tribal courts — which have lawful criminal jurisdiction — cannot independently obtain electronic evidence that is routine for state and federal prosecutors to access. They contend that crimes including domestic violence, drug trafficking, and sexual assault on reservations go unsolved or unprosecuted because digital evidence is out of reach, and that this bill simply extends to Tribal courts the same legal tools already available to every state court in the country.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expanding the SCA's warrant authority to hundreds of Tribal courts raises legitimate questions about the consistency and enforceability of Tribal warrant procedures, which vary significantly across Tribes and may not provide the same procedural protections as federal or state courts. They contend that technology companies could face compliance burdens from a large number of new issuing authorities with differing standards, and that individuals — including non-Tribal members whose data may be sought — may have fewer established avenues to challenge Tribal court warrants than those issued by federal or state courts.