Duro v. Reina

• Article

• Talk

Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court concluded that Indian tribes could not prosecute Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed by those nonmember Indians on their reservations. The decision was not well received by the tribes, because it defanged their criminal codes by depriving them of the power to enforce them against anyone except their own members. In response, Congress amended a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act , 25 U.S.C.  § 1301 , to include the power to "exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians" as one of the powers of self-government .

Contents

• 1 Background

  • 1.1 Reservation

  • 1.2 Facts

• 2 Opinion of the Court

  • 2.1 Dissenting opinion

• 3 Aftermath

• 4 See also

• 5 References

• 6 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duro_v._Reina&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Map of Maricopa County showing Salt River Indian Reservation in red

Reservation

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duro_v._Reina&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Reservation")

The Salt River Indian Reservation , located east of Scottsdale, Arizona , is home to the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community . The reservation was established in 1879 by executive order to recognize the occupation of the land by Pima and Maricopa Indians.[1] The Indians moved from the Gila River Indian Reservation due to white settlers upstream diverting water from the Gila River so that the Indians could no longer farm there.[2] Although the Indians had complained at the Gila River reservation, nothing was done to stop the theft of their water, where at the Salt River, the tribes were upstream of the settlers and did not have the same problem.[3] In 1926, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) created a Pima Advisory Council and in 1934 the two tribes adopted a constitution for the reservation.[4] The current constitution dates from 1940.[5]

Facts

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duro_v._Reina&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Facts")

Albert Duro was not a member of the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community. He was from California and was a member of the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians ;[6] thus, he was not eligible for membership in the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, and could not vote in tribal elections, hold tribal office, or serve on tribal juries.

Duro lived on the Salt River Indian Reservation[7] with a "woman friend" and worked for the tribe's construction company, PiCopa Construction. In 1984, he was accused of killing a 14-year-old boy inside the boundaries of the reservation. Initially, Duro was charged with murder and aiding and abetting murder in federal court, but the prosecution dismissed those charges without prejudice. Duro was handed over to Salt River tribal authorities, who charged Duro with illegally firing a weapon because under federal law, Indian tribes are limited to prosecuting misdemeanor crimes. The tribal courts denied Duro's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and then Duro filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona .

The district court granted the writ and ordered Duro released. Under _Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe _, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), the tribal court had no jurisdiction over non-Indians. If the district court were to find that the tribal court had jurisdiction over Indians who were not members of the tribe, it reasoned that would violate the equal protection guarantee of freedom from discrimination based on race. The Ninth Circuit reversed. It read the Supreme Court's decision in _United States v. Wheeler _, 435 U.S. 313 (1978), which stated that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over nonmembers, as supported by an "equivocal" history, and concluded that federal statutory law allowed tribal jurisdiction over all Indians, not simply members. Finally, it concluded that holding that tribes lacked criminal jurisdiction over nonmembers would create a "jurisdictional void," since only the state might have the power to prosecute the nonmember, and the state may lack the power or resources to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.

Opinion of the Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duro_v._Reina&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")

In an opinion by Justice Kennedy , the Court described this case as falling at the "intersection" of its prior decisions in Oliphant and Wheeler. In Oliphant, the Court held that the inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes did not allow them to have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit crimes on the reservation. And in Wheeler, the Court held that tribes retain their jurisdiction to prosecute their members for crimes committed on the reservation. The question this case posed was whether "the sovereignty retained by the tribes in their dependent status within our scheme of government includes the power of criminal jurisdiction over nonmembers." The Court reasoned that the decisions in Oliphant and Wheeler compelled a negative answer to this question.

The sovereignty retained by the Indian tribes is "of a unique and limited character." A fully sovereign government would have the power to prosecute all crimes that take place within its territorial boundaries, but the Indian tribes are no longer sovereign in that sense. The sovereignty retained by the tribes to prosecute their own members stems from their power to govern themselves in order to maintain "their own unique customs and social order." When the tribes were relegated to dependents of the federal government, they did not lose this inherent power. Rather, the tribes were divested only of the power to regulate relations between themselves and nonmembers.

The distinction between members and nonmembers is the critical distinction in this case, not the distinction between Indian and non-Indians. Thus, states may not impose taxes on transactions between members that take place on reservations, because this would interfere with the sovereignty of tribes vis-à-vis their own members. Tribes also retain the power to regulate hunting on lands they own or lands held in trust for them by the United States, but not on lands held in fee . And although other decisions of the Court had recognized broader retained powers in the civil context, criminal powers of Indian tribes were strictly limited to members because "the exercise of criminal jurisdiction subjects a person not only to the adjudicatory power of the tribunal, but also to the prosecuting power of the tribe, and involves a far more direct intrusion on personal liberties." Thus, Indian tribes may only prosecute members for crimes committed on their reservations. Because Duro was not a member of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, that tribe did not have the power to prosecute him for the crime of illegally firing a weapon.

The tribes argued that, historically, tribes had jurisdiction over all Indians regardless of membership. For example, federal statutes used the word "Indian" without regard to membership, to refer to the "family of Indians." Courts of "Indian offenses," established by the Department of the Interior for tribes without their own functioning court systems, historically exercised jurisdiction over all Indians without regard to membership, and continue to do so. But the Court responded that federal statutes had always referred to federal programs, and never to the power of tribes with respect to individual Indians. "The historical record prior to t

…