Can A Federally Recognized Tribe With A Checkerboard Reservation Pattern Assert Jurisdiction Over A Non-Indian Fee Simple Property Owner's Subsurface Mineral Rights Under The Indian Mineral Development Act, Where The Surface Estate Has Been Partitioned Among Multiple Owners, But The Tribe Retains Title To The Subsurface Estate, And The Relevant Federal Statute Does Not Explicitly Provide For Tribal Jurisdiction In Such Circumstances?

The federally recognized tribe cannot assert jurisdiction over non-Indian subsurface mineral rights under the Indian Mineral Development Act (IMDA) in the described scenario. Here's the breakdown:

1. Jurisdictional Framework: Tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians is typically limited unless explicitly granted by Congress. The IMDA facilitates mineral development agreements but does not explicitly confer jurisdiction over non-Indian subsurface rights.

2. IMDA's Purpose: The IMDA focuses on aiding tribes in managing mineral resources through agreements with the Secretary of the Interior, not on granting jurisdictional authority.

3. Land Ownership Considerations: The tribe's ownership of the subsurface estate, despite the checkerboard surface ownership, does not automatically confer jurisdiction over non-Indian rights without explicit statutory backing.

4. Legal Precedents: Supreme Court decisions, such as Montana v. United States, establish that tribes generally lack jurisdiction over non-Indians unless Congress explicitly grants it.

5. Conclusion: Without explicit statutory authority, the tribe cannot assert jurisdiction over non-Indian subsurface mineral rights, even if the subsurface is part of the reservation.

In summary, the IMDA does not provide the necessary explicit authority for the tribe to assert jurisdiction in this scenario.