It’s a common assumption: if evidence of a crime is discovered on federal land, the case must belong in federal court. While that might seem logical, it’s not how jurisdiction works—especially when it comes to criminal activity.
Long ago, before the United States was just a sparkle in our founders’ eye, it was tradition for crimes to be adjudicated by individuals where the crime occurred. The location of crime became the definitive place for where a crime was prosecuted and at times could provide what sort of punishment should be expected. But how do two levels of government, governing over the same territory, interact with this tradition?
When creating a unified government for the newly independent thirteen states, the founders of our country sought to limit the amount of authority the Federal Government would have over the states when prosecuting crimes. One of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution enshrined this idea, “The power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const. amend. X. One of those powers not delegated to the United States was the police power inherently held by the states. In theory, the best way to hold to the tradition of allowing localities to prosecute crimes would be to save that authority to the government more localized—the states.
Simply: The states had criminal laws long before the Federal Government did.
The first federal judiciary act established the office(s) of United States Attorney, with each district being within each state. At that time, a single attorney for each district would be responsible “to prosecute in (each) district all delinquents for crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned.” 1 Stat. 92. That limited “authority of the United States” requires federal prosecutors, even to this day, to ensure any crime prosecuted by the United States is done in a manner compatible with the Tenth Amendment. The United States Constitution lays out very specific grants of police power relegated by the states for the federal government. Those grants are specifically enumerated and anything else is left for the states. The most common example of those specific grants of authority in the criminal context is the regulation of commerce amongst the states. U.S. Const. Art. I. § 8. Congress can enact laws requiring specific regulations of commerce, and the United States Attorneys can prosecute those who do not follow those regulations. Otherwise, the federal government cannot prosecute the offense.
Federal Land Is Not a Jurisdictional Shortcut
Federal land often creates confusion because people equate federal ownership with federal authority over all disputes connected to that land. But ownership and jurisdiction are different things. You can own stock in a company, but that doesn’t mean you’re able to enter any of that company’s buildings whenever you’d like. In the same manner, even if a crime is committed on federal land, it does not mean that the federal government must prosecute it.
Instead, the Constitution grants exclusive jurisdiction to “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dockyards, and other needful Buildings.” U.S. Const. Art. I. § 17. Ultimately, what matters is the consent of the states for the federal government to acquire jurisdiction. But even with the state’s consent, the United States need not take jurisdiction after the purchase of property. There is a lot involved before the federal government must prosecute crimes within its jurisdiction. States often still prosecute crimes that occur on federal land.
The Practical Takeaway
By tradition, our system is set up to prefer local prosecution of crimes. States inherently retain the power to prosecute crimes and generally, it is only when territory is exclusively within the possession of the United States that states must acquiesce.
Understanding the distinction between ownership and jurisdiction helps avoid unnecessary fights over potential punishments and keeps the focus where it belongs: on the merits of the case.
About the author … Adam Dreher is a trial lawyer at NachtLaw who helps clients navigate high-stakes employment and criminal matters with confidence. Drawing on nearly a decade as a prosecutor—and experience at the local, state, and federal levels—Adam brings a disciplined, trial-ready approach to every case. A former U.S. Army Cavalry Scout and combat veteran, he is known for thorough preparation, strategic thinking, and steady courtroom advocacy. Clients rely on Adam for clear guidance, strong defense, and results-driven representation when it matters most.