dual sovereignty

What happened

The Double Jeopardy Clause bars trying someone twice for the same offense, but not when two separate sovereigns each prosecute. The question for tribes is whether a tribal court prosecutes under the tribe's own power or under power delegated by the federal government.

In United States v. Wheeler (1978), a Navajo man pleaded guilty in Tribal Court to contributing to the delinquency of a minor. A federal grand jury later indicted him for statutory rape arising out of the same incident. The Court of Appeals held that tribal and federal courts were not "arms of separate sovereigns." The Supreme Court disagreed and held that "The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the federal prosecution."

The Court reasoned that the controlling question is the source of a tribe's power to punish tribal offenders: whether it is part of inherent tribal sovereignty or an aspect of federal sovereignty delegated by Congress. It said that "Indian tribes still possess those aspects of sovereignty not withdrawn by treaty or statute, or by implication as a necessary result of their dependent status." The Navajo Tribe, it found, had never given up its sovereign power to punish tribal offenders.

United States v. Lara (2004) extended the logic to a nonmember Indian prosecuted by a tribe. The Court held that because the Tribe acted in its capacity as a sovereign authority, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not prohibit the federal prosecution.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error