TRIBAL COURTS, WHICH EXIST ON SOME SIXTY RESERVATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE AND ESSENTIALLY AUTONOMOUS COURT SYSTEM FOR AMERICAN INDIANS. THE JURISDICTION OF THESE COURTS IS, AT LEAST IN THEORY, WIDE RANGING. ALTHOUGH EMPOWERED TO DEAL WITH ALL CIVIL AND CRIMINAL MATTERS OCCURRING AMONG INDIANS WITHIN RESERVATION BOUNDARIES, EXCEPT THIRTEEN MAJOR CRIMES, THE TRIBAL COURTS OFTEN CEDE TO STATE JURISDICTION IN MATTERS IN WHICH IT IS PERCEIVED THAT A SPECIAL EXPERTISE IS NEEDED. THE AUTHOR FINDS THAT A LACK OF LEGALLY TRAINED PERSONNEL CHARACTERIZES THE TRIBAL COURT SYSTEM, AND NOTES THAT TRIBAL COURT JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS ARE OFTEN UNINFORMED ABOUT TRIBAL CODES. THE APPEARANCE OF DEFENSE LAWYERS IN TRIBAL COURTS WAS FOUND TO BE MINIMAL. PHYSICAL FACILITIES, THE AUTHOR STATES, ARE OFTEN INADEQUATE. THE AUTHOR THEN EXAMINES SEVERAL OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS AND ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A SEPARATE TRIBAL COURT SYSTEM. THESE ARGUMENTS STATE THAT ONLY INDIANS CAN AND SHOULD DEAL WITH INDIAN PROBLEMS, THAT INDIAN COURTS WILL AFFORD JUSTICE FREE OF ANTI-INDIAN PREJUDICE, AND THAT INDIAN COURTS OFFER A MORE APPROPRIATE, PERSONAL, AND HUMANE FORM OF OPERATION THAN WHITE COURTS. THE AUTHOR REFUTES EACH OF THESE STATEMENTS, AND ARGUES INSTEAD THAT THE INDIAN'S PERCEPTION OF THE TRIBAL COURTS IS NO MORE POSITIVE THAN HIS PERCEPTIONS OF WHITE COURTS. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES WHILE SOME PEOPLE TALK ABOUT EXTENDNG THE JURISDICTION OF TRIBAL COURTS, THE VIEWS OF INDIVIDUAL INDIANS HAVE NOT BEEN SOUGHT; THESE INDIVIDUALS, HE CLAIMS, MIGHT OPPOSE AN EXTENSION.