Travis Stanberry
LAW 5653
Unit 4 Reading Review
Talton v. Mayes (1896)
Cherokee citizen Bob Talton appealed to the Supreme Court after a murder conviction in tribal court. Arguing that four years prior, a new law which required grand juries to be comprised of six members, Talton was tried by a jury of five under Cherokee law. The Supreme Court ruled that tribes were domestic dependent nations, and tribal court policy would be enforced.
United States v. Wheeler (1978)
If a tribal member is found guilty in a tribal court, the individual can still be sentenced in federal court for additional crimes stemming from the same incident. While the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a U.S. citizen from being tried twice for the same crime, tribal courts are recognized as separate sovereign nations.
The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968
The ICRA was established to prohibit tribal governments from inhibiting the civil rights of tribal citizens. Further, ICRA required tribal courts to follow similar guidelines of state and federal settings. Some rights were purposefully omitted from the act to recognize cultural and political differences between tribes.
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978)
Following a complaint of sexual discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not act as an enforcer over tribal legislative affairs. The court determined that the Santa Clara Pueblo had sovereign immunity from suit. Ultimately, the federal government is incapable of placing any restrictions on how a tribe determines membership.
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (2014)
The Bay Mills Indian Community purchased land in Michigan in 2010 and sought to build and operate a casino on the lands. The state argued that the purchased lands were not trust lands and therefore not within tribal jurisdiction to conduct gaming. The Supreme Court ruled that the tribe had sovereign immunity to prevent suit by the state. The court affirmed that only Congress can determine any limitations to sovereign immunity.
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (1955)
The Tee-Hit-Ton tribe claimed rights to compensation of timber taken by the state of Alaska. The Supreme Court ruled that the tribe held merely occupation rights of the land. As the tribe could show no recognition of title to the land, they were not due compensation.
Analysis
This unit’s cases and statutes focused on the strength of tribal sovereignty. Whereas numerous cases throughout the history of federal Indian policy restricted the rights of the tribes, these cases focus on the inherent powers of tribes that have been identified as unalienable by federal courts.
In Talton (1896), the court stated that the federal government, “nor so as to interfere with the right and powers of said civilized nations to punish said members for violation of the statues and laws enacted by their national councils where such laws are not contrary to the treaties and laws of the United States” (Anderson, 2015, pp. 322-323). This ruling empowered tribes to establish and operate tribal courts by their own standards, without regard for the differences in federal court.
In the case of Wheeler (1978), tribal court rulings were identified as actions by a separate sovereign nation, therefore the concept of Double Jeopardy need not apply, “when the Navajo Tribe exercises this power, it does so as part of its retained sovereignty and not as an arm of the Federal Government” (Anderson, 2015, p. 329).
Though a controversial case, Martinez (1978) was important for showing the importance of sovereign immunity and self-government, “in the absence here of any unequivocal expression of contrary legislative intent, we conclude that suites against the tribe under the ICRA are barred by its sovereign immunity from suit” (Anderson, 2015, p. 337).
Bay Mills (2014) set a precedent for the limitations of the federal court on sovereign immunity, as the court stated, “we declined in Kiowa to make any exception for suits arising from a tribe’s. commercial sctivities, even when they take place off Indian lands…rather, we opted to “defer” to Congress about whether to abrogate tribal immunity for off-reservation commercial conduct” (Anderson, 2015, p. 355) This additional layer of requiring Congressional intent would assist tribes in protecting immunity from suit.
Reference:
Anderson, Robert T., et al. American Indian Law: Cases and Commentary. 3rd ed., West Academic Publishing, 2015.
Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376, 16 S. Ct. 986, 41 L. Ed. 196 (1896)
United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 98 S. Ct. 1079, 55 L. Ed 2d 303 (1978)
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 98 S. Ct. 1670, 56 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1978)
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, – U.S. -, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 188 L.Ed.2d 1071 (2014)
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, S. Ct. 313, 99 L. Ed. 314 (1955)