517:
individual
Indians. "The historical record prior to the creation of modern tribal courts shows little federal attention to the individual tribes' powers as between themselves or over one another's members. Scholars who do find treaties or other sources illuminating have only divided in their conclusions." After the federal government allowed the tribes to "express retained tribal sovereignty" by creating their own tribal courts, the Secretary of the Interior still had to approve the legal codes the tribes created before the courts of Indian offenses would yield to the tribes own courts. Written opinions of the Solicitor General of the Department of the Interior consistently affirmed the power of the tribes over their own members, but went no further. In light of the historical record, the Court was not "persuaded that external criminal jurisdiction is an accepted part of the courts' function."
334:
529:
Tribes retain the power to expel undesirable persons. Tribal authorities may still arrest the nonmember and detain him until he can be handed over to authorities who do have the power to prosecute the nonmember. The tribe pointed out that state authorities can lack the power to prosecute crimes committed by nonmembers on reservations; Arizona, for instance, expressly disclaims this prosecutorial authority. But
Congress has allowed states to assume this power, and Arizona is free to take up Congress's invitation. Finally, if the tribes still believed that there remained a "jurisdictional void," despite these options, they could persuade Congress to give it to them.
508:. And although other decisions of the Court had recognized broader retained powers in the civil context, criminal powers of Indian tribes were strictly limited to members because "the exercise of criminal jurisdiction subjects a person not only to the adjudicatory power of the tribunal, but also to the prosecuting power of the tribe, and involves a far more direct intrusion on personal liberties." Thus, Indian tribes may only prosecute members for crimes committed on their reservations. Because Duro was not a member of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, that tribe did not have the power to prosecute him for the crime of illegally firing a weapon.
546:
to allow Indian tribes to exert jurisdiction over nonmembers. Furthermore, Justice
Brennan did not accept the Court's argument that the fact that nonmembers were citizens of the United States counseled against allowing tribes to exert jurisdiction over nonmembers. If that was true, he said, it would also be true that tribes could not exert jurisdiction over their own members either. Nor had the Court ever held that participation in the political process was a prerequisite to exercising criminal jurisdiction over a citizen. If this were true, then states could never prosecute nonresidents or aliens.
31:
460:, as supported by an "equivocal" history, and concluded that federal statutory law allowed tribal jurisdiction over all Indians, not simply members. Finally, it concluded that holding that tribes lacked criminal jurisdiction over nonmembers would create a "jurisdictional void," since only the state might have the power to prosecute the nonmember, and the state may lack the power or resources to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
399:
murder in federal court, but the prosecution dismissed those charges without prejudice. Duro was handed over to Salt River tribal authorities, who charged Duro with illegally firing a weapon because under federal law, Indian tribes are limited to prosecuting misdemeanor crimes. The tribal courts denied Duro's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and then Duro filed a petition for a writ of
521:
their personal liberty. Criminal trial and punishment is so serious and intrusion on personal liberty that its exercise over non-Indian citizens was a power necessarily surrendered by the tribes in their submission to the overriding sovereignty of the United States." Tribal courts do not necessarily afford defendants the full range of protections afforded defendants in federal courts by the
500:
the tribes to prosecute their own members stems from their power to govern themselves in order to maintain "their own unique customs and social order." When the tribes were relegated to dependents of the federal government, they did not lose this inherent power. Rather, the tribes were divested only of the power to regulate relations between themselves and nonmembers.
488:, the Court held that tribes retain their jurisdiction to prosecute their members for crimes committed on the reservation. The question this case posed was whether "the sovereignty retained by the tribes in their dependent status within our scheme of government includes the power of criminal jurisdiction over nonmembers." The Court reasoned that the decisions in
525:. Because tribal members may participate in tribal governance, the Court approves of tribal members being subject to the criminal jurisdiction of their own tribes. Because nonmembers do not participate in tribal governance, the Court felt it was too great an intrusion to allow tribes to prosecute nonmembers.
545:
sovereign has the power to prosecute an entire class of crimes should inform our understanding of the assumptions about tribal power upon which
Congress legislated." Accordingly, Justice Brennan believed the Court should have read the historical evidence in such a way that supported Congress's intent
308:
case in which the Court concluded that Indian tribes could not prosecute
Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed by those nonmember Indians on their reservations. The decision was not well received by the tribes, because it defanged their criminal codes by depriving them of the
503:
The distinction between members and nonmembers is the critical distinction in this case, not the distinction between Indian and non-Indians. Thus, states may not impose taxes on transactions between members that take place on reservations, because this would interfere with the sovereignty of tribes
499:
The sovereignty retained by the Indian tribes is "of a unique and limited character." A fully sovereign government would have the power to prosecute all crimes that take place within its territorial boundaries, but the Indian tribes are no longer sovereign in that sense. The sovereignty retained by
374:
due to white settlers upstream diverting water from the Gila River so that the
Indians could no longer farm there. Although the Indians had complained at the Gila River reservation, nothing was done to stop the theft of their water, where at the Salt River, the tribes were upstream of the settlers
528:
Finally, the Court rejected the argument that not allowing tribes to prosecute nonmembers, those nonmembers would escape prosecution altogether for criminal activity engaged in within tribal boundaries. The federal government retains the power to prosecute felonies that take place on reservations.
398:
Duro lived on the Salt River Indian
Reservation with a "woman friend" and worked for the tribe's construction company, PiCopa Construction. In 1984, he was accused of killing a 14-year-old boy inside the boundaries of the reservation. Initially, Duro was charged with murder and aiding and abetting
516:
for tribes without their own functioning court systems, historically exercised jurisdiction over all
Indians without regard to membership, and continue to do so. But the Court responded that federal statutes had always referred to federal programs, and never to the power of tribes with respect to
520:
The Court could not ignore the fact that Duro was also a citizen of the United States, entitled to all the privileges and immunities that attach to that status. One right a citizen of the United States enjoys is the right to due process of law, which protects them from "unwarranted intrusions on
540:
disagreed that the Court's holding did not create a jurisdictional void. "The existence of a jurisdictional gap is not an independent justification for finding tribal jurisdiction, but rather is relevant to determining congressional intent. The unlikelihood that
Congress intended to create a
511:
The tribes argued that, historically, tribes had jurisdiction over all
Indians regardless of membership. For example, federal statutes used the word "Indian" without regard to membership, to refer to the "family of Indians." Courts of "Indian offenses," established by the
558:
in 1990 as part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 1991, which was signed into law on November 5, 1990. Nearly fourteen years later, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of this amendment to 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) in
1512:
441:
1538:
1375:
1548:
1185:
395:; thus, he was not eligible for membership in the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, and could not vote in tribal elections, hold tribal office, or serve on tribal juries.
1475:
598:
1291:
504:
vis-à-vis their own members. Tribes also retain the power to regulate hunting on lands they own or lands held in trust for them by the United States, but not on lands held in
484:, the Court held that the inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes did not allow them to have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit crimes on the reservation. And in
431:
over non-Indians. If the district court were to find that the tribal court had jurisdiction over Indians who were not members of the tribe, it reasoned that would violate the
1066:
404:
1558:
1327:
1363:
768:
583:
446:
417:
82:
1138:
1018:
593:
436:
1339:
994:
379:(BIA) created a Pima Advisory Council and in 1934 the two tribes adopted a constitution for the reservation. The current constitution dates from 1940.
1350:
1090:
854:
1416:
641:
Report in the Matter of the Investigation of the Salt and Gila Rivers: Reservations and Reclamation Service, Before the H. Comm. on the Interior
970:
1380:
1355:
1074:
1553:
1533:
1010:
54:
Albert Duro v. Edward Reina, Chief of Police, Salt River Department of Public Safety, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, et al.
827:
588:
355:
1114:
513:
1543:
1500:
578:
392:
322:
823:
1396:
1321:
1297:
867:
978:
847:
1285:
946:
1505:
1333:
740:
412:
314:
305:
35:
1455:
1050:
914:
333:
1002:
840:
732:
276:
1439:
1042:
309:
power to enforce them against anyone except their own members. In response, Congress amended a section of the
1273:
347:
135:
1460:
1315:
1154:
863:
806:
522:
157:
63:
1470:
1255:
371:
890:
554:
Congress quickly addressed the jurisdictional gap that emerged from the Court's ruling by amending the
1249:
1176:
1034:
720:
1401:
1303:
1279:
1106:
788:
376:
832:
1450:
1261:
555:
537:
432:
310:
1465:
1368:
1243:
1122:
1026:
962:
922:
229:
197:
1213:
1130:
906:
772:
561:
450:
421:
74:
779:
898:
565:(2004), upholding the amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act and effectively overturning
472:, the Court described this case as falling at the "intersection" of its prior decisions in
387:
Albert Duro was not a member of the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community. He was from
8:
1406:
882:
351:
1445:
1426:
1231:
1219:
1207:
1201:
1168:
797:
453:
424:
321:, to include the power to "exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians" as one of
1563:
1421:
1146:
1058:
930:
221:
209:
189:
1513:
United States Congressional Joint Special Committee on Conditions of Indian Tribes
748:
744:
318:
77:
1433:
1162:
1082:
986:
954:
469:
367:
359:
241:
697:
Semblances of Sovereignty: The Constitution, the State, and American Citizenship
1490:
1267:
938:
233:
217:
1527:
1495:
1480:
400:
174:
An Indian tribe may not assert criminal jurisdiction over a nonmember Indian.
1309:
456: (1978), which stated that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over
428:
815:
105:
1411:
363:
205:
258:
Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia
1485:
505:
388:
93:
736:
1237:
1225:
410:
The district court granted the writ and ordered Duro released. Under
89:
862:
337:
Map of Maricopa County showing Salt River Indian Reservation in red
139:
124:
164:, No. CIV 84–2107–PHX–RGS, 1994 WL 714015 (D. Ariz. Nov. 16, 1990)
1186:
List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes
599:
List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
30:
669:
A Native American Encyclopedia: History, Culture, and Peoples
1539:
United States Native American criminal jurisdiction case law
435:
guarantee of freedom from discrimination based on race. The
154:
132:
1067:
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
1549:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
731:
Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, Apr. 11, 1968, 82
405:
United States District Court for the District of Arizona
1328:
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
1292:
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
584:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 495
1139:
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
1019:
Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida
594:
Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
1340:
Cherokee Nation Truth in Advertising for Native Art
995:
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
439:reversed. It read the Supreme Court's decision in
375:and did not have the same problem. In 1926, the
1525:
1091:Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield
1417:Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
971:United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co.
496:compelled a negative answer to this question.
358:. The reservation was established in 1879 by
848:
1075:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc.
123:, No. CIV. 84-2107 PHX.WPC, 1985 WL 260639 (
362:to recognize the occupation of the land by
1011:McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission
855:
841:
1559:Salt River Pima–Maricopa Indian Community
828:National Conference of State Legislatures
621:A Guide to Contemporary Southwest Indians
589:List of United States Supreme Court cases
356:Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community
332:
1364:Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians
579:Tribal sovereignty in the United States
463:
393:Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
1526:
1298:American Indian Religious Freedom Act
1115:Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho
868:Native Americans in the United States
836:
627:806-07 (Charles J. Kappler ed. 1904).
532:
427: (1978), the tribal court had no
370:Indians. The Indians moved from the
18:1990 United States Supreme Court case
979:Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
1286:Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
947:Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
13:
1554:Native American history of Arizona
413:Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1575:
1534:United States Supreme Court cases
1456:National Indian Gaming Commission
1051:Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe
915:New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
775:676 (1990) is available from:
757:
625:Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties
1003:Menominee Tribe v. United States
29:
1210:(1790,1793,1796,1799,1802,1834)
653:H. Comm. on the Interior Report
277:Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968
1544:1990 in United States case law
1440:In the Courts of the Conqueror
1043:Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez
725:
714:
702:
686:
674:
658:
646:
630:
610:
341:
1:
1322:Native American Languages Act
604:
541:jurisdictional void in which
372:Gila River Indian Reservation
348:Salt River Indian Reservation
328:
323:the powers of self-government
304:, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), was a
1461:Native American civil rights
1316:Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
1155:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
549:
7:
1476:Recognition of sacred sites
1471:Native American Rights Fund
1376:Federally recognized tribes
1256:Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act
693:Thomas Alexander Aleinikoff
572:
306:United States Supreme Court
279:, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq.
266:Brennan, joined by Marshall
10:
1580:
1334:Indian Arts and Crafts Act
891:Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
816:Oyez (oral argument audio)
514:Department of the Interior
293:Appropriations Act of 1991
1389:
1349:
1250:Indian Reorganization Act
1194:
1177:Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
1035:United States v. Antelope
874:
721:Pub. L. 101-511 § 8077(b)
290:
283:
275:
270:
262:
254:
249:
183:
178:
173:
168:
146:
116:
111:
101:
69:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
1402:Bureau of Indian Affairs
1304:Indian Child Welfare Act
1107:South Dakota v. Bourland
739:(codified as amended at
442:United States v. Wheeler
391:and was a member of the
382:
377:Bureau of Indian Affairs
43:Argued November 29, 1989
1451:Long Walk of the Navajo
1381:State recognized tribes
1280:Indian Civil Rights Act
556:Indian Civil Rights Act
311:Indian Civil Rights Act
1466:Native American gaming
1369:Legal status of Hawaii
1244:Indian Citizenship Act
1123:Idaho v. United States
1027:Bryan v. Itasca County
963:Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
923:Standing Bear v. Crook
338:
198:William J. Brennan Jr.
96:2696; 58 U.S.L.W. 4643
1274:Indian Relocation Act
1131:United States v. Lara
907:Fellows v. Blacksmith
643:, 62d Cong. 4 (1913).
562:United States v. Lara
336:
291:Department of Defense
88:110 S. Ct. 2053; 109
899:Worcester v. Georgia
464:Opinion of the Court
45:Decided May 29, 1990
1446:Indian reservations
1407:Cherokee Commission
883:Johnson v. McIntosh
807:Library of Congress
352:Scottsdale, Arizona
230:Sandra Day O'Connor
1506:Self-determination
1501:Tribal sovereignty
1427:Eagle-bone whistle
1220:Indian Removal Act
1208:Nonintercourse Act
1202:Blood quantum laws
1169:McGirt v. Oklahoma
617:Bernard L. Fontana
533:Dissenting opinion
350:, located east of
339:
194:Associate Justices
1521:
1520:
1422:Eagle feather law
1356:State recognition
1147:Cobell v. Salazar
1059:Solem v. Bartlett
931:Ex parte Crow Dog
468:In an opinion by
354:, is home to the
297:
296:
210:Thurgood Marshall
190:William Rehnquist
160:(9th Cir. 1990);
1571:
1397:Aboriginal title
1214:Civilization Act
1150:(D.C. Cir. 2009)
857:
850:
843:
834:
833:
820:
814:
811:
805:
802:
796:
793:
787:
784:
778:
752:
729:
723:
718:
712:
710:
706:
700:
698:
694:
690:
684:
682:
678:
672:
670:
666:
662:
656:
650:
644:
638:
634:
628:
626:
622:
618:
614:
433:equal protection
179:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
1579:
1578:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1517:
1434:Hunting license
1385:
1354:
1345:
1262:Nationality Act
1190:
1163:Sharp v. Murphy
1083:Hodel v. Irving
987:Williams v. Lee
955:Talton v. Mayes
870:
861:
818:
812:
809:
803:
800:
794:
791:
785:
782:
776:
760:
755:
730:
726:
719:
715:
708:
707:
703:
696:
692:
691:
687:
680:
679:
675:
668:
664:
663:
659:
651:
647:
636:
635:
631:
624:
620:
616:
615:
611:
607:
575:
552:
538:Justice Brennan
535:
470:Justice Kennedy
466:
385:
360:executive order
344:
331:
292:
286:
242:Anthony Kennedy
232:
222:John P. Stevens
220:
208:
127:Jan. 8, 1985),
97:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1577:
1567:
1566:
1561:
1556:
1551:
1546:
1541:
1536:
1519:
1518:
1516:
1515:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1498:
1493:
1491:Trail of Tears
1488:
1483:
1478:
1473:
1468:
1463:
1458:
1453:
1448:
1443:
1436:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1419:
1414:
1409:
1404:
1399:
1393:
1391:
1387:
1386:
1384:
1383:
1378:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1360:
1358:
1347:
1346:
1344:
1343:
1337:
1331:
1325:
1319:
1313:
1307:
1301:
1295:
1289:
1283:
1277:
1271:
1268:Public Law 280
1265:
1259:
1253:
1247:
1241:
1235:
1229:
1223:
1217:
1211:
1205:
1204:(1705 onwards)
1198:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1189:
1188:
1182:
1181:
1173:
1159:
1151:
1143:
1135:
1127:
1119:
1111:
1103:
1095:
1087:
1079:
1071:
1063:
1055:
1047:
1039:
1031:
1023:
1015:
1007:
999:
991:
983:
975:
967:
959:
951:
943:
939:Elk v. Wilkins
935:
927:
926:(D. Neb. 1879)
919:
911:
903:
895:
887:
878:
876:
872:
871:
860:
859:
852:
845:
837:
831:
830:
821:
789:Google Scholar
759:
758:External links
756:
754:
753:
741:25 U.S.C.
724:
713:
701:
685:
673:
665:Barry Pritzker
657:
645:
629:
608:
606:
603:
602:
601:
596:
591:
586:
581:
574:
571:
551:
548:
534:
531:
523:Bill of Rights
465:
462:
384:
381:
343:
340:
330:
327:
315:25 U.S.C.
295:
294:
288:
287:
284:
281:
280:
273:
272:
268:
267:
264:
260:
259:
256:
252:
251:
247:
246:
245:
244:
234:Antonin Scalia
218:Harry Blackmun
195:
192:
187:
181:
180:
176:
175:
171:
170:
166:
165:
148:
144:
143:
118:
114:
113:
109:
108:
103:
99:
98:
87:
71:
67:
66:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1576:
1565:
1562:
1560:
1557:
1555:
1552:
1550:
1547:
1545:
1542:
1540:
1537:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1529:
1514:
1511:
1507:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1499:
1497:
1496:Treaty rights
1494:
1492:
1489:
1487:
1484:
1482:
1481:Seminole Wars
1479:
1477:
1474:
1472:
1469:
1467:
1464:
1462:
1459:
1457:
1454:
1452:
1449:
1447:
1444:
1442:
1441:
1437:
1435:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1420:
1418:
1415:
1413:
1410:
1408:
1405:
1403:
1400:
1398:
1395:
1394:
1392:
1388:
1382:
1379:
1377:
1374:
1370:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1362:
1361:
1359:
1357:
1352:
1348:
1341:
1338:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1323:
1320:
1317:
1314:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1302:
1299:
1296:
1293:
1290:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1278:
1275:
1272:
1269:
1266:
1263:
1260:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1248:
1245:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1206:
1203:
1200:
1199:
1197:
1193:
1187:
1184:
1183:
1179:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1170:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1141:
1140:
1136:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1120:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1099:Duro v. Reina
1096:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1005:
1004:
1000:
997:
996:
992:
989:
988:
984:
981:
980:
976:
973:
972:
968:
965:
964:
960:
957:
956:
952:
949:
948:
944:
941:
940:
936:
933:
932:
928:
925:
924:
920:
917:
916:
912:
909:
908:
904:
901:
900:
896:
893:
892:
888:
885:
884:
880:
879:
877:
873:
869:
865:
858:
853:
851:
846:
844:
839:
838:
835:
829:
825:
822:
817:
808:
799:
790:
781:
774:
770:
766:
765:Duro v. Reina
762:
761:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
728:
722:
717:
705:
689:
677:
671:61-63 (2000).
661:
654:
649:
642:
633:
623:33 (1999); 3
613:
609:
600:
597:
595:
592:
590:
587:
585:
582:
580:
577:
576:
570:
568:
567:Duro v. Reina
564:
563:
557:
547:
544:
539:
530:
526:
524:
518:
515:
509:
507:
501:
497:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
461:
459:
455:
452:
448:
444:
443:
438:
437:Ninth Circuit
434:
430:
426:
423:
419:
415:
414:
408:
406:
402:
401:habeas corpus
396:
394:
390:
380:
378:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
335:
326:
324:
320:
316:
312:
307:
303:
302:
301:Duro v. Reina
289:
285:Superseded by
282:
278:
274:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:Case opinions
248:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:
193:
191:
188:
186:Chief Justice
185:
184:
182:
177:
172:
167:
163:
159:
156:
152:
149:
145:
141:
137:
134:
130:
126:
122:
121:Duro v. Reina
119:
115:
110:
107:
106:Oral argument
104:
100:
95:
91:
85:
84:
79:
76:
72:
68:
65:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
24:Duro v. Reina
22:
16:
1438:
1310:Diminishment
1175:
1167:
1161:
1153:
1145:
1137:
1129:
1121:
1113:
1105:
1098:
1097:
1089:
1081:
1073:
1065:
1057:
1049:
1041:
1033:
1025:
1017:
1009:
1001:
993:
985:
977:
969:
961:
953:
945:
937:
929:
921:
913:
905:
897:
889:
881:
764:
745:§§ 1301
727:
716:
704:
688:
676:
660:
652:
648:
640:
632:
612:
566:
560:
553:
542:
536:
527:
519:
510:
502:
498:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
467:
457:
440:
429:jurisdiction
411:
409:
397:
386:
345:
300:
299:
298:
271:Laws applied
237:
225:
213:
201:
161:
150:
128:
120:
112:Case history
81:
53:
15:
1412:Dawes Rolls
1195:Legislation
699:108 (2009).
342:Reservation
319:§ 1301
206:Byron White
1528:Categories
1486:Survivance
1232:Curtis Act
824:Commentary
709:Aleinikoff
605:References
458:nonmembers
389:California
329:Background
147:Subsequent
129:vacated by
94:U.S. LEXIS
92:693; 1990
60:Docket no.
1238:Burke Act
1226:Dawes Act
826:from the
683:at 61-63.
550:Aftermath
162:on remand
151:On remand
90:L. Ed. 2d
70:Citations
1564:Cahuilla
875:Case law
763:Text of
681:Pritzker
573:See also
490:Oliphant
482:Oliphant
474:Oliphant
368:Maricopa
255:Majority
140:9th Cir.
125:D. Ariz.
102:Argument
1390:Related
1351:Federal
780:Findlaw
711:at 108.
655:at 4-5.
639:at 33;
637:Fontana
494:Wheeler
486:Wheeler
478:Wheeler
403:in the
263:Dissent
169:Holding
64:88-6546
1342:(2008)
1336:(1990)
1330:(1990)
1324:(1990)
1318:(1988)
1312:(1984)
1306:(1978)
1300:(1978)
1294:(1975)
1288:(1971)
1282:(1968)
1276:(1956)
1270:(1953)
1264:(1940)
1258:(1936)
1252:(1934)
1246:(1924)
1240:(1906)
1234:(1898)
1228:(1887)
1222:(1830)
1216:(1819)
1180:(2022)
1172:(2020)
1158:(2013)
1142:(2005)
1134:(2004)
1126:(2001)
1118:(1997)
1110:(1993)
1102:(1990)
1094:(1989)
1086:(1987)
1078:(1986)
1070:(1985)
1062:(1984)
1054:(1982)
1046:(1978)
1038:(1977)
1030:(1976)
1022:(1974)
1014:(1973)
1006:(1968)
998:(1960)
990:(1959)
982:(1955)
974:(1941)
966:(1903)
958:(1896)
950:(1896)
942:(1884)
934:(1883)
918:(1858)
910:(1857)
902:(1832)
894:(1831)
886:(1823)
864:Rights
819:
813:
810:
804:
801:
798:Justia
795:
792:
786:
783:
777:
743:
735:
317:
240:
238:·
236:
228:
226:·
224:
216:
214:·
212:
204:
202:·
200:
153:, 910
771:
733:Stat.
480:. In
449:
420:
383:Facts
142:1987)
117:Prior
773:U.S.
749:1303
492:and
476:and
451:U.S.
422:U.S.
366:and
364:Pima
346:The
155:F.2d
136:1136
133:F.2d
131:851
83:more
75:U.S.
73:495
1353:and
1166:and
866:of
769:495
506:fee
454:313
447:435
425:191
418:435
158:673
78:676
1530::
767:,
751:).
737:77
695:,
667:,
619:,
569:.
543:no
445:,
416:,
407:.
325:.
313:,
856:e
849:t
842:v
747:–
138:(
86:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
