In the context of either State-Federal or tribal- Federal law, the task is to work out relations among sovereigns that share land and history. However, it would be erroneous to equate States and tribes, because profound differences of history, sociology, and politics exist between the two. The United States Constitution appears to recognize tribes as having a status outside its parameters, as entities free from the taxing powers of States and the Federal Government, and with which the Federal Government shares commercial relations and makes treaties. Congress and the United States Supreme Court have shifted policies toward Indian tribes many times within the last century. Judicial decisions have also been crucial. Under the United States Supreme Court's 1978 decision in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, tribal courts enforce most mandates of the Indian Civil Rights Act. However, the deference that the Federal courts have accorded to states on the criminal side is not paralleled in the tribal context. In addition, while the Supreme Court has imposed exacting standards when Congress has tried to limit State sovereign immunity, the Court has a more relaxed standard for interpreting laws involving limits on tribal powers. Overall, however, the interconnection of land, history, and cultures means that neither Federal, State, nor tribal courts are entities unto themselves. Footnotes and photographs