United States v. Mary Marcyes and James Siddle, United States of America v. Benjamin Reed

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that firework laws were criminal, rather than regulatory, because their purpose was “to prohibit the[] general use and possession” of fireworks
• applying the test to the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13
• addressing whether fireworks law was properly assimilated based on the argument that it was regulatory rather than prohibitory and on the argument that “Congress has provided other standards which are controlling and preempt the field”
• although state law allows limited use of fireworks it is essentially prohibitory and so applies to Indian reservation via ACA
• state not allowed to enforce regulatory system on Indian reservation by making criminal failure to comply with regulations
• “[T]he ACA is a general law of the United States made applicable to Indian reservations by 18 U.S.C. [§] 1152.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).