United States v. Lara: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Gregory J. Prickett (expand) |
imported>Gregory J. Prickett (expand) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Background == | == Background == | ||
=== ''Duro'' case === | === ''Duro'' case === | ||
In 1990, the Supreme Court decided ''Duro v. Reina'',<ref name=Duro>{{cite court |litigants=Duro v. Reina |vol=495 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=676 |pinpoint= |court= |date=1990 |url=}}.</ref> which held that an Indian tribe did not have [[jurisdiction]] to try a non-tribal member for a crime that was committed on the reservation.<ref name=Pommersheim251>{{cite book |last=Pommersheim |first=Frank |authorlink= |coauthors= |editor= |others= |title=Broken Landscape : Indians, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution: Indians, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution |origdate= |origyear=2009 |origmonth= |url= |format= |accessdate= |accessyear= |accessmonth= |edition= |series= |date= |year= |month= |publisher=Oxford University Press |location= |language= |isbn= | In 1990, the Supreme Court decided ''Duro v. Reina'',<ref name=Duro>{{cite court |litigants=Duro v. Reina |vol=495 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=676 |pinpoint= |court= |date=1990 |url=}}.</ref> which held that an Indian tribe did not have [[jurisdiction]] to try a non-tribal member for a crime that was committed on the reservation.<ref name=Pommersheim251>{{cite book |last=Pommersheim |first=Frank |authorlink= |coauthors= |editor= |others= |title=Broken Landscape : Indians, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution: Indians, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution |origdate= |origyear=2009 |origmonth= |url= |format= |accessdate= |accessyear= |accessmonth= |edition= |series= |date= |year= |month= |publisher=Oxford University Press |location= |language= |isbn= |oclc= |doi= |id= |pages=251 |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= }}</ref> After that decision, [[United States Congress|Congress]] passed an amendment<ref>Pub.L. 101-511, Title VIII, § 8077(b), (c), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1892.</ref> to the [[Indian Civil Rights Act]]<ref>25 U.S.C. § 1301.</ref> which clarified that tribal courts had jurisdiction over all Indians, whether members of that individual tribe or not. This was known as the ''Duro'' fix.<ref name=Pommersheim251 /><ref name=Williams150>{{cite book |last=Williams |first=Robert A. |authorlink= |coauthors= |editor= |others= |title=Like a Loaded Weapon: The Rehnquist Court, Indian Rights, And the Legal History of Racism in America |origdate= |origyear=2005 |origmonth= |url= |format= |accessdate= |accessyear= |accessmonth= |edition= |series= |date= |year= |month= |publisher=University of Minnesota Press |location= |language= |isbn= |oclc= |doi= |id= |pages=150 |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= }}</ref> | ||
=== Facts of the case === | === Facts of the case === | ||
Billy Jo Lara was a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians who in 2001 lived with his wife on the Spirit Lake Reservation.<ref name=Williams153> | Billy Jo Lara was a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians who in 2001 lived with his wife on the Spirit Lake Reservation.<ref name=Williams153>Williams <nowiki>[2005]</nowiki>, 153.</ref> His wife was a member of the Spirit Lake Tribe.{{#tag:ref|The tribe was a Sisseton Wahpeton band of the [[Sioux|Dakota]] people.|group=fn}} After several incidents of misconduct, Lara was excluded from the reservation. Lara returned to the reservation on June 13, 2001 and was arrested for public intoxication.<ref name=DND*1>{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Lara |vol=2001 |reporter=WL |opinion=1789403 |pinpoint=*1 |court=D.N.D. |date=Nov. 29, 2001 |url=}}.</ref> After being transported to the police station, Lara was informed of the exclusion order. Lara then struck [[Bureau of Indian Affairs]] (BIA) Police Officer Byron Swan.<ref name=Williams153 /><ref name=DND*1 /> | ||
== Footnotes == | == Footnotes == | ||
Revision as of 22:57, 12 January 2014
United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004) was a case where the United States Supreme Court held that an American Indian could be prosecuted by both an Indian tribe and the United States government without implicating the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Background
Duro case
In 1990, the Supreme Court decided Duro v. Reina,[1] which held that an Indian tribe did not have jurisdiction to try a non-tribal member for a crime that was committed on the reservation.[2] After that decision, Congress passed an amendment[3] to the Indian Civil Rights Act[4] which clarified that tribal courts had jurisdiction over all Indians, whether members of that individual tribe or not. This was known as the Duro fix.[2][5]
Facts of the case
Billy Jo Lara was a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians who in 2001 lived with his wife on the Spirit Lake Reservation.[6] His wife was a member of the Spirit Lake Tribe.[fn 1] After several incidents of misconduct, Lara was excluded from the reservation. Lara returned to the reservation on June 13, 2001 and was arrested for public intoxication.[7] After being transported to the police station, Lara was informed of the exclusion order. Lara then struck Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Police Officer Byron Swan.[6][7]
Footnotes
References
- ↑ Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990).
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Pommersheim, Frank [2009]. Broken Landscape : Indians, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution: Indians, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution. Oxford University Press, 251.
- ↑ Pub.L. 101-511, Title VIII, § 8077(b), (c), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1892.
- ↑ 25 U.S.C. § 1301.
- ↑ Williams, Robert A. [2005]. Like a Loaded Weapon: The Rehnquist Court, Indian Rights, And the Legal History of Racism in America. University of Minnesota Press, 150.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Williams [2005], 153.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 United States v. Lara, 2001 WL 1789403, *1 (D.N.D. Nov. 29, 2001).