The Modoc Nation Domicile is proud to announce their continued growth in the reinsurance and domestic domicile marketplace. As a sovereign nation and federally recognized Tribe, the Modoc Nation has created an innovative and alternative answer to the traditional offshore captive domiciles. Through the utilization of technology and direct access to regulators and providers, the Modoc Nation is building an efficient, highly successful risk-based regulatory environment to meet the needs of its clients while providing ease conducting business.

About Tribal Sovereignty

Sovereignty Definition:

Tribal sovereignty refers to the right of American Indians and Alaska Natives to govern themselves. The U.S. Constitution recognizes Indian tribes as distinct governments that have, with a few exceptions, the same powers as federal and state governments to regulate their own affairs. Sovereignty for tribes includes the right to establish their own form of government, determine membership requirements, enact legislation and establish law enforcement and court systems. (An Issue of Sovereignty, 2010).

What is meant by a Federally Recognized Tribe?

“Recognition” is a legal term meaning that the United States recognizes a government-to-government relationship with a Tribe and that a Tribe exists politically in a “domestic dependent nation” status. Federally-recognized Tribes possess certain inherent powers of self-government and entitlement to certain federal benefits, services, and protections because of the special trust relationship. (About Native Americans, n.d.).

Is Modoc Nation federally recognized?

Modoc Nation (previously known as Modoc tribe of Oklahoma) gained federal recognition in 1978. A full list of federally recognized tribes is available. Click here.
(“Indian Entities Recognized”, 2021).

Sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution gives authority in Indian affairs to the federal government, not to the state governments. Just as the United States deals with states as governments, it also deals with Indian tribes as governments. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes“, determining that Indian tribes were separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations.


Three historic court cases are often cited with respect to tribal sovereignty:

In Johnson v. McIntosh (1823)  — Concerned the legality of a tribal land grant made to private individuals and provided that tribes’ rights to sovereignty were impaired by colonization but not disregarded, and that only the federal government has the right to negotiate for American Indian land.

In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) — The Cherokee Nation filed a lawsuit against the state of Georgia which requested relief from state jurisdiction on their land. The decision described Indian tribes as “domestic dependent nations” and maintained that the federal-tribal relationship “resembles that of a ward to his guardian.”

In Worcester v. Georgia (1832) — Concerned the application of Georgia state law within the Cherokee Nation. The decision was made that tribes do not lose their sovereign powers by becoming subject to the power of the United States and also maintained that only Congress has overriding power over Indian affairs and that state laws do not apply in Indian Country.


Mark A. Weitz, J.D., PhD

Insurance Commissioner

Licensed to practice law in Texas since 1983 and in Florida since 1988, Mr. Weitz is experienced in insurance law, health law, and civil litigation. As the former counsel to the Insurance Liquidator of Texas and a former insurance company executive, he has represented a diverse client base in a wide range of insurance and corporate-related areas both domestic and internationally. With years of insurance experience and familiarity with industry issues from initial start-up to all aspects of operation, Mr. Weitz has worked with companies on matters of legal compliance, reinsurance, agent issues, policy interpretation, and if necessary, matters pertaining to solvency, including rehabilitation and/or receivership. Since 2000 he has been actively involved in the captive insurance industry representing captive managers and forming captive companies for clients. He has extensive experience interacting with regulators within the United States and offshore, including the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.