If I were Billy Jo Lara, I’d say to Congress: “Hey, you can’t do that!” But, Congress did. And the supreme justices agreed with the lawmakers.
Two years after the High Court ruled in Lara, Russell Means entered the fray with his own arguments against a tribe’s right to prosecute members of other tribes. His case was brought before the Ninth District U.S. Court of Appeals in 2006. Means argued the Navajo Nation had no right to prosecute him for beating his wife and father-in-law because he wasn’t a member of the Navajo Tribe. He raised a few good questions, questions that could apply in Lara.
To begin: Means asked how Congress could vest tribes with criminal jurisdiction over Indians who are U.S. citizens, a point he raised in light of the fact the the U.S. Constitution does not apply to tribes. Really, this is way too much to explain right now, but it rings with many elements of truth considering that Indian Country’s Bill of Rights, the Indian Civil Rights Act is enforceable only when tribes decide so.
Why should we care? The Duro and Oliphant cases demonstrate a disconcerting shift in how the court turned its back on inherent tribal sovereignty. In Lara, however, the case demonstrates the plenary power of Congress to legislate on behalf of Native peoples despite the Supreme Court’s previous decisions. I find the case interesting because it’s one of the few examples I can think of where Congress overruled the Supreme Court on behalf of tribes. The Lara decision is rooted in Duro v. Reina, a case in which the High Court ruled a tribal court could not prosecute members of another tribe. This created a serious problem for upholding the law in Indian Country. After much outcry, Congress remedied the situation with the Duro Fix.
What do you think? Check out all the links to the cases and then make your own decision.
Jodi Rave