United States v. Lara

What happened

Lara, an Indian who was not a member of the Spirit Lake Tribe, ignored the Tribe's order excluding him from its reservation. He struck one of the federal officers arresting him. He pleaded guilty in tribal court to violence to a policeman. The federal government then charged him with assaulting a federal officer.

Lara argued the Double Jeopardy Clause protected him from a second prosecution. The government answered that the Clause does not bar successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns. After the Court ruled in Duro v. Reina that a tribe lacks sovereign authority to prosecute nonmember Indians, Congress specifically authorized such prosecutions, declaring the "inherent power of Indian tribes ... to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians." The magistrate judge rejected Lara's claim. The en banc Eighth Circuit reversed.

On April 19, 2004, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit. Justice Breyer wrote that "Congress has the constitutional power to lift the restrictions on the tribes' criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians." Because the Tribe "acted in its capacity as a sovereign authority," the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the federal prosecution.

Justice Breyer's opinion was joined by four justices. Justices Kennedy and Thomas agreed with the judgment in separate opinions, and Justice Souter dissented, joined by Justice Scalia.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error