Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

of Minnesota that would divest the Band of its recognized governmental authority
over its own lands. “Location” is self-evident. The mere location of a right-of-
way does not imply any governmental authority whatsoever. “Construction” does
not include any governmental authority–it requires only a right of entry and a right
to construct. Similarly, “maintenance” requires only a right of entry and a right to
conduct maintenance activities. Such activities are not inherently governmental in
nature. The very existence of private roads illustrates that the activities necessary
to construct and maintain a road can be carried out by a party without any
governmental authority whatsoever.
Therefore, the Band’s exercise of governmental authority over any right-of-
way, including civil jurisdiction over automobile accidents, is not (in the terms of
§ 256.7) “inconsistent” with the primary purpose of any right-of-way to locate,
construct, and maintain a highway. If there is any doubt, reference to the interstate
highway system makes it clear that one sovereign can retain civil jurisdiction even
if another sovereign has a highway system that traverses the lands of the former.
States exercise civil jurisdiction (both adjudicatory and regulatory) over federally
funded interstate highways running through a state. Just because the federal
government pays for maintenance of a road does not deprive the states of the
ability to enforce and adjudicate their laws. The situation here is analogous.
33