Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1451. 35 I.B.I.A. at 103. 6 . At oral argument, the Secretary indicated that although a tribe has civil regulatory jurisdiction over lands taken into trust, a state may seek to enforce its laws — to the extent they are not preempted by federal law — on trust lands either by agreement with the tribe or by seeking a determination in federal court that the State's interests with respect to enforcing a particular regulation outweigh the interests of the tribe and the federal government in fostering tribal self-government. See Hicks, 533 U.S. at 362, 121 S.Ct. 2304 ("When ... state interests outside the reservation are implicated, States [sometimes] may regulate the activities even of tribe members on tribal land.”); see also id. at 364, 121 S.Ct. 2304 (<HOLDING>); Washington v. Confederated Tribes of
holding state law applicable to an indian accused of statutory rape of an indian minor occurring offreservation holding that a congressional policy allowing vertical integration of logging on federal lands does not indicate that a similar policy is permissible on state lands holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment holding that state officers may execute on tribal lands process related to offreservation violations of state law