The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Granted: Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Argument: Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Decision: Monday, April 19, 2004
Issues: Civil Rights, Indians

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (argued the cause for Petitioner)
Alexander F. Reichert (argued the cause for Respondent)

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.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Article 1, Section 1: Delegation of Powers
Wrote a regular concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote a dissent
Souter
Wrote the majority opinion
Breyer
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote a special concurrence
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the minority, joined Souter's dissent
Scalia
Wrote a special concurrence
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_107/>
(last visited ).