[QUOTE=fortpatches;1222410]If you want to read a recent Law Review Note about Tribal Sovereignty and a State's power of Eminent Domain, you can check this out:
Partially Tribal Land:The Case for Limiting State Eminent Domain Power under 25 USC § 357 [PDF]
tl/dr: Federal statute allows state eminent domain for condemnation of tribal lands allotted to individual landowners, but not of lands held by a tribal entity. (Please see the Note for appropriate citations. There are 175, not including the Note Title.)



And @Midtowner, no, McGirt was not overturned.
Concurrent jurisdiction does not create near the problems as the grant of tribal governments to exclusive jurisdiction for criminal prosecutions. For all intents and purposes, yes, McGirt was overturned in the sense that the more recent ruling does not create near the headache for the system as McGirt did. I think it also headed off some very problematic developments in looking at the criminal aspects of McGirt jurisdiction creep into taxing and civil jurisdiciton by the state courts. The native governments just aren't ready for that and they're really ill equipped to handle things like major infrastructure projects.

And regarding the Law Review Note, that's just an opinion, i.e., it's nice to be nice to native governments. It's not the law. While the 10th Circuit has held pretty much in accordance with that Note, I'm not sure how that shakes out in other jurisdictions. The 10th Circuit is, compared to other jurisdictions a lot more favorable to Native interests than other circuits, or even the SCOTUS these days.