United States v. Lara facts for kids
Quick facts for kids United States v. Lara |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued January 21, 2004 Decided April 19, 2004 |
|
| Full case name | United States v. Billy Jo Lara |
| Citations | 541 U.S. 193 (more)
124 S. Ct. 1628; 158 L. Ed. 2d 420; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 2738
|
| Holding | |
| As an Indian tribe and the United States are separate sovereigns, prosecuting a crime under both tribal and federal law does not attach double jeopardy. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Stevens |
| Concurrence | Kennedy (in judgment) |
| Concurrence | Thomas (in judgment) |
| Dissent | Souter, joined by Scalia |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Art. II, §2; U.S. Const. amend. V; 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) | |
United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
In the 1880s, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act, divesting tribes of criminal jurisdiction in regard to several felony crimes. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in Duro v. Reina that an Indian tribe did not have the authority to try an Indian criminally who was not a member of that tribe. The following year, Congress passed a law that stated that Indian tribes, because of their inherent sovereignty, had the authority to try non-member Indians for crimes committed within the tribe's territorial jurisdiction.
The defendant, Billy Jo Lara, was charged for acts that were criminal offenses under both the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe's laws and the federal United States Code. Lara pleaded guilty to the tribal charges, but claimed double jeopardy against the federal charges. The Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy did not apply to Lara since "the successive prosecutions were brought by separate and distinct sovereign bodies".
Contents
Books and media
The case has been widely covered in books and news media. Tribal court authority has been altered by the U.S. government for decades, affecting jurisdictional powers. In Justice Thomas's conclusion at the end of this case, he stated, "History points in both directions." Thomas further stated, "Federal Indian policy, is, to say the least, schizophrenic." Thomas's statements directly address the Supreme Court's confusion on both present and future Federal Indian Policy. As Justice Souter stated in his dissent, this remains "an area peculiarly susceptible to confusion."
See also
In Spanish: Estados Unidos contra Lara para niños
