standing, a plaintiff has the burden of proving: (1) that he or she suffered an injury-in-fact, (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, and (3) that the injury likely will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Pucket v. Hot Springs Sch. Dist. No. 28-2, 526 F.3d 1151, 1157 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889, 892 (8th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The State’s claim satisfies the minimum constitutional requirements for standing. States generally lack authority to regulate Indian tribes and tribe members on trust property. See, e.g., Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 994, 1006, 1010-11 (8th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). As an immediate consequence of placing the
holding that lands held in trust by the united states for the tribes are indian country within the meaning of  1151a recognizing lands taken into trust by the bia under  5 of the ira are indian country and as a general rule indian country falls under the primary civil criminal and regulatory jurisdiction of the federal government and the resident tribe rather than the states holding that state of south dakota does not have criminal jurisdiction over indians in indian country holding that pursuant to amended public law 280 a tribe must consent to state court civil jurisdiction over actions arising against member indians in indian country holding that oklahoma police officer was without jurisdiction to arrest indian inside indian reservation when the state has neither received by express grant nor acted pursuant to congressional authorization to assume criminal jurisdiction over indian country