United States v. Lara

Media Items
United States v. Lara - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
United States v. Lara - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Edwin S. Kneedler (argued the cause for Petitioner)
Alexander F. Reichert (argued the cause for Respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
03-107
Petitioner: 
United States
Respondent: 
Billy Jo Lara
Opinion: 
541 U.S. 193 (2004)
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, United States v. Lara , 541 U.S. 193 (2004)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_107)
Facts of the Case: 

Bureau of Indian Affairs officials arrested Billy Jo Lara on the Spirit Lake Nation Reservation for public intoxication (though Lara is not a member of the reservation). During the arrest Lara attacked an officer.

A tribal court convicted Lara of assault. The federal government then indicted Lara for assaulting a federal officer. Lara moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming the federal charges violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double jeapordy (being charged twice for the same crime). The district court denied Lara's motion. Lara then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his Fifth Amendment motion.

A panel of the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling. However, the Eight Circuit reversed when it reviewed the case en banc (with the full court), ruling that Lara's federal charges violated the double jeapordy clause. The court reasoned that the only source of authority for Spring Lake Nation to prosecute a nonmember (like Lara) came from the federal Indian Civil Rights Act (1968). Because the federal government delegated this prosecutorial authority to Indian Tribes, charging Lara for the same crime in tribal and federal courts was essentially trying Lara twice under federal authority.

Question: 

Does the Indian Civil Rights Act (1968) give Indian tribes separate sovereignty to prosecute nonmembers (as opposed to delegating federal power to the tribes for prosecution purposes) such that prosecution in tribal and federal courts for the same crime would not violate the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause?

Conclusion: 

Yes. In an opinion written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and three other Justices, the Court found that the right to prosecute nonmember Indians is inherent in the sovereignty of Native American tribes. Congress may constitutionally choose to restrict this right, but its choice not to (or its choice to relax earlier-imposed restrictions) is different from a delegation of federal prosecutorial power. Prosecuting a crime under both federal and tribal law, therefore, does not violate the Constitution.

Decisions

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 1: Delegation of Powers

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a regular concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the minority, joined Souter's dissent
Scalia
Wrote a special concurrence
Kennedy
Wrote a dissent
Souter
Wrote a special concurrence
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote the majority opinion
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court