PART 1: UNDERSTANDING THE M-OPINION

May 3, 2026

What is the M-opinion and how did it come about?

By Vivian LaMoore, Inaajimowin Editor

Recent discussions surrounding the Mille Lacs County Board's request for the U.S. Department of the Interior to revisit Solicitor's Opinion M-37032 — commonly known as the M-Opinion — have raised questions about what the opinion is and why it matters. To better understand the M-Opinion, it helps to look at the events that led to the Department of the Interior issuing the legal opinion in 2015.

In 2013, the Mille Lacs Band announced it was asking the Department of Justice for increased federal law enforcement jurisdiction within the approximately 61,000 acres associated with the Mille Lacs Reservation established under the 1855 Treaty. The request was made under the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) of 2010.

Band leaders said the request for concurrent federal jurisdiction was driven by public safety concerns, particularly the need for stronger tools to combat drug trafficking and violent crime on the Reservation.

According to the Department of Justice, the Tribal Law and Order Act was designed to strengthen public safety in tribal communities by providing tribes and law enforcement agencies with additional tools to address crime. The law encourages the hiring and training of more officers for Indian lands, expands tribes' authority to prosecute certain crimes, and improves information sharing between tribal, federal, and state law enforcement agencies. It also strengthens responses to sexual assault and domestic violence while supporting prevention efforts aimed at reducing alcohol and drug abuse among at-risk youth.

County officials raised concerns that granting the Band’s request under the TLOA could create complicated jurisdictional issues and jeopardize existing law enforcement partnerships.

Since the 1990s, during the Band's treaty-rights lawsuit, Mille Lacs County officials had asserted that the Reservation established by the 1855 Treaty had been disestablished or diminished. Then-County Attorney Jan Jude informed the Mille Lacs County Board of Commissioners that accepting the Band’s request "would essentially have the effect of reestablishing the previously disestablished Mille Lacs Reservation," adding that only Congress has the authority to disestablish or establish a reservation.

"The TLOA is not appropriate where granting the request creates a boundary dispute; where there are adequate law enforcement, judicial and correctional resources; and where there are positive criminal justice partnerships working together on public safety." Jude said.

The County formally contested the Band's request, asserting that the Reservation no longer existed. Outside legal counsel for the County asked the Department of Justice to deny the Band's request for the assumption of concurrent federal criminal jurisdiction, both generally and specifically within the 61,000 acres associated with the 1855 Mille Lacs Reservation.

The County's position was inconsistent with the federal position. The Department of the Interior and other federal agencies had issued several opinions holding that the Reservation continued to exist within its 1855 boundaries. However, because of the questions raised by the County, the Interior Department launched a lengthy investigation into the treaties and the origins of the Mille Lacs Reservation to reconsider whether the 1855 Reservation's boundaries had ever been legally disestablished or diminished. In simple terms, the question was whether Congress had ever taken official action to end or reduce the Mille Lacs Reservation after it was established by treaty.

That research ultimately led the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor to issue a formal 37-page legal opinion in 2015 known as M-Opinion M-37032. After reviewing treaty history, federal law, court decisions, and previous Interior opinions, the M-Opinion concluded that Congress had never acted to disestablish the Mille Lacs Reservation established under the 1855 Treaty. As a result, the opinion determined that the Reservation continues to exist today - consistent with earlier federal determinations.

Under federal law, only Congress has the authority to disestablish or diminish an Indian reservation, and the Solicitor's opinion found no evidence that Congress had ever taken such action regarding the Mille Lacs Reservation.

The Department of the Interior signed and released the M-Opinion on November 20, 2015.

Shortly after the opinion was issued, the Department of Justice acted on the Band’s original request under the TLOA. On January 12, 2016, the Department of Justice announced it had granted the Mille Lacs Band's request for the United States to assume concurrent criminal jurisdiction on the Band's reservation lands.

At the time, the decision marked only the second instance in which jurisdiction had been assumed under the TLOA. The law allows the Department of Justice to accept concurrent federal jurisdiction to prosecute violations of the General Crimes Act and the Major Crimes Act in areas of Indian country that are also subject to state criminal jurisdiction under Public Law 280. The White Earth Nation was the first tribe to receive the same approval.

Tribal leaders said the expanded authority would strengthen efforts to combat violent crime and growing drug trafficking. Tribal law enforcement had joined four other Minnesota tribes to create a joint Tribal Drug Task Force aimed at improving information sharing and stopping criminals who move between reservations — often referred to as "Rez hopping" — to avoid law enforcement.

Band leadership said the ability for federal prosecutors and investigators to pursue major crimes under the Tribal Law and Order Act would provide a stronger deterrent and send a clear message that those bringing drugs and violence onto reservation lands could face serious federal penalties.

However, tensions between the Band and Mille Lacs County soon escalated, setting the stage for years of legal debate over jurisdiction and reservation boundaries.

Part 2 of this series looks at what happened next and why the M-Opinion has once again become a topic of public discussion. See page 6.