|
|
Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian CountryPrior to the American Revolution, tribes exercised exclusive jurisdiction within their territories. Soon after the establishment of the United States, however, federal jurisdiction was expanded to cover non-Indians committing crimes against Indians within Indian country. In 1817, federal jurisdiction was further expanded under the General Crimes Act (also known as the Indian Country Crimes Act) to encompass crimes committed by both Indians and non-Indians, except for crimes committed by Indians against Indians. Crimes committed by Indians against Indians were still handled by the tribes based on tribal law. The Supreme Court upheld this arrangement in the Crow Dog case when it found that there was no federal jurisdiction where one tribal member had murdered another within Indian country. Congress reacted adversely to the Crow Dog decision by passing the Major Crimes Act in 1885. This act created federal jurisdiction over certain serious offenses (e.g., murder) committed by Indians in Indian country, notwithstanding the status of the victim (Indian or non-Indian). The Supreme Court subsequently upheld this Congressional intrusion into tribal affairs in United States v. Kagama. Currently, the states have jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against non-Indians. Crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians fall within federal jurisdiction. In 1990, the Supreme Court held that tribes could exercise jurisdiction solely over their own tribal members in Duro v. Reina. Congress disagreed with this decision and passed legislation acknowledging "the inherent power of Indian tribes, hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians." 25 U.S.C.A. § 1301(2). In 2004, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the congressional "Duro fix" legislation in United States v. Lara. Affirmation of Criminal Jurisdiction Over Nonmember American Indians From Marshall to Marshall: The Supreme Court's Changing Stance on Tribal Sovereignty Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Chart Related Case Law:Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883) United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886) Oliphant v. Suquamish, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990) Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004) Related Multimedia from ArizonaNativeNet
|
|||
Contact web master©2006 The Arizona Board of Regents on Behalf of the University of Arizona
This project was supported by Grant No. 2005-DD-BX-1156 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.