H.R. 6625: Violence Against Indian Women Act of 2012

112th Congress · introduced 2012-12-03 · Native Americans · Latest: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

Where it came from: introduced 2012-12-03 · official record
Who proposed it: Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49] · what a sponsor is
What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
Where it stands now: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

Violence Against Indian Women Act of 2012

Plain summary

Violence Against Indian Women Act of 2012 - Amends the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 to give Indian tribes criminal jurisdiction over domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protective orders that occur on their lands. Makes that jurisdiction concurrent with federal and state jurisdiction. Prohibits a tribe from exercising such jurisdiction if neither the defendant or alleged victim is an Indian, or the defendant lacks certain ties to the tribe. Requires Indian tribes prosecuting those crimes to: (1) provide defendants the right to a trial by an impartial jury; and (2) notify detainees of their rights, including the right to file a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to assist Indian tribes in exercising such jurisdiction, providing indigent defendants with free legal counsel, and securing the rights of victims of such crimes. Authorizes appropriations for such grant program and to provide participating Indian tribes with training, technical assistance, data collection, and an evaluation of their criminal justice systems. Authorizes defendants charged with domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protective orders to petition the appropriate federal district court for the removal of their case from tribal court. Prohibits a case from being removed from tribal court unless a defendant proves by a preponderance of evidence that a constitutional right guaranteed under the Act has been violated, the tribal court has not adequately remedied the violation, and the violation is prejudicial to the defendant.

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

Violence Against Indian Women Act of 2012

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49] · 4 cosponsors

Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.

Cosponsors on this site

Tom Cole (R-OK), Michael K. Simpson (R-ID)

Sponsor's campaign money: Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49] reported raising $2.2 million (2025–2026). Details. Shown for context only; it does not mean any donor supported this bill.

No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.

Words on this page, explained (2)

Appropriation: Money a legislature sets aside by law for a specific purpose. Government agencies may spend public money only as it has been appropriated.
Jurisdiction: The area or the matters a government or court has authority over.

Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.

Sources

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
Congress.gov
Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-112hr6625.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/112/hr>

Record fed-us-cong112-hr6625 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong112 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong112