How is Dina d’malkhuta transferred from one nation/state/malkutha to another?

Question

How is Dina d’malkhuta transferred from one nation/state/malkutha to another? Does land enter a state where it has no malkhuta or does it go directly from one malkhuta to another?

If a nation has an ongoing dispute with another nation under which malkhuta are the jews that live in the disputed territory?

E.g. Are jews living in San Francisco under Ohlone Dina d’malkhuta?

Are jews who live on Native American reservations under the Dina de malkuta of the native nation of that reservation or the United States?

I am wondering about this particular case: the expulsion of the Cherokee, the Muscogee, the Seminole, the Chickasaw, and the Choctaw Nations— The Five Civilized Tribes from their ancestral homeland in the South Eastern United States.

In 1830 the US Congress passed and President Andrew Jackson signed a law allowing the expulsion from their ancestral homelands to lands West of the Mississippi River. Andrew Jackson led the expulsion. The expulsion resulted in the deaths of ~18,000 Natives in the Conflict to resist the expulsion and in the forced march beyond the Mississippi to Indian Terriroty known as the Trail of Tears.

But in this case the executive actually disobeyed the law of his own country. Andrew Jackson notoriously ignored and violated a set of United States Supreme Court Rulings affirming tribal rights and sovereignty in their ancestral homeland.

So Andrew Jacksonn acted against the Dina of his own Malkhuta, his actions were illegal.

Are Jews living in the former lands of the Five Civilized Tribes under the Dina d’malkutah of the tribe of that land?

Does it matter if the yid is of native descent or not?

It should not have bearing on the question but for context: I have a family mesorah of Cherokee Ancestry.

Answer 1

It appears we basically follow a de facto recognition of who's currently governing, not a de jure one; and the facts are determined by economics.

Rambam, end of Ch. 5 of Laws of Theft and Loss:

ה,יז מלך שכרת אילנות של בעלי בתים, ועשה מהן גשר--מותר לעבור עליו; וכן אם הרס בתים, ועשה אותן דרך או חומה--מותר ליהנות בה. וכן כל כיוצא בזה, שדין המלך דין.

ה,יח במה דברים אמורים, במלך שמטבעו יוצא באותן הארצות, שהרי הסכימו עליו בני אותה הארץ, וסמכה דעתן שהוא אדוניהם והם לו עבדים. אבל אם אין מטבעו יוצא, הרי הוא כגזלן בעל זרוע, וכמו חבורת ליסטים המזויינין, שאין דיניהן דין; וכן מלך זה וכל עבדיו, כגזלן לכל דבר.

A king who cuts down citizens' trees and builds a bridge from them -- the bridge may be crossed; similarly if he demolished houses and built a road or wall -- one may benefit from it. And so too all similar things, as the law of the king is the law.

When does this apply? When dealing with a king whose currency is accepted in the lands, as the people have accepted that they are his subjects and he their leader. But if his coin is not used, he's just a strong-armed thief, like a band of armed bandits, whose law is not the law; and thus this king all his staff are like thieves.

I think the simplest reading of that would be that anywhere US federal currency is used, US law is "the law of the land."