Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

United States v. Lara

Docket No.: 03-107
Certiorari Granted: Sep 30 2003
Argued: January 21, 2004
Decided: April 19, 2004

Topics:

Article 1, Section 1: Delegation of Powers, Civil Rights, Indians, Article I, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights Act, Commerce Clause, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Equal Protection Clause, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Indians, Miranda, Necessary and Proper, Sixth Amendment, Treaty Clause, habeas, separation of powers, stare decisis

PartyNames: United States v. Billy Jo Lara
Petitioner: United States
Respondent: Billy Jo Lara

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Citation: CA 8, 324 F.3d 635 QUESTION PRESENTED In Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), this Court held that Indian Tribes hadlost their inherent sovereign power to prosecute members of other Tribes for offenses committed on their reservations. Congress responded to the Court'sdecision by amending the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, to "recognize[] and affirm[]" the "inherent power" of Tribes to "exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians." The question presented is:
Supreme Court Docket

United States
v.
Billy Jo Lara
541 U.S. 193 (2004)
Question Presented:

The question presented is: Whether Section 1301, as amended, validly restores the Tribes' sovereign power to prosecute members of other Tribes (rather than delegates federal prosecutorial power to the Tribes), such that a federal prosecution followinga tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. CERT. GRANTED: 9/30/03

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?

Note:

. CA 8, 324 F.3d 635 QUESTION PRESENTED In Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), this Court held that Indian Tribes hadlost their inherent sovereign power to prosecute members of other Tribes for offenses committed on their reservations. Congress responded to the Court'sdecision by amending the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, to "recognize[] and affirm[]" the "inherent power" of Tribes to "exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians."

United States v. Lara
ORAL ARGUMENT

January 21, 2004

Holding: reversed
Decision: Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Vote: 7-2

United States v. Lara
Case Documents

1Slip Opinion in United States v. Lara (Opinion by )
2Opinion in United States v. Lara
3Opinion in United States v. Lara
Additional documents for this case are pending review.