Since Public Law 280 (1953) transferred civil and criminal jurisdiction of American Indians to five states and offered it to all other states while still maintaining the trust status of reservation lands, this paper asserts that PL 280 constitutes an "uneasy" Federal compromise between abandoning American Indians to the states and maintaining them as federally protected wards. Specifically, this paper addresses: objections to PL 280 and legislative solutions (controversy over Indian consent to the law; controversy over the financing of state jurisdiction; and lack of provision for retrocession or the option to return to Federal jurisdiction); and objections to PL 280 and jurisdicial resolutions (the mechanics of PL 280 transfers including optional and mandatory states; broad outlines of PL 280 jurisdiction--limitations and causes of action; local government jurisdiction; and exceptions re: hunting and fishing rights, regulation of land use, and taxing power; and new state jurisdiction acquired under PL 280). The paper's concluding remarks suggest the following: the trend away from judge-made rules and in favor of a preemption analysis based on PL 280 may reflect changes in Federal Indian policy in the direction of increased respect for tribal sovereignty, since the 1968 amendments required tribal consent and authorized partial jurisdiction and limited retrocession; since PL 280 is now the funnel through which all state jurisdiction over reservation Indians must flow, controversies over its mechanics and scope have taken on added significance. (JC)