Expert: US Courts Break Decades of Native American Law

Flag Staff, Associated Press (AP) — Expanding state authorities to prosecute several crimes on Native American lands The Associated Press decided was built on the principle of fierce fighting that tribes have the right to rule themselves on their territory, according to law experts who have been in trouble for decades. The court of law.

Wednesday's ruling is a significant deviation from federal law in India and deviates from the promotion to enhance the ability of tribes to prosecute all crimes in their settlements, regardless of the parties involved. .. It also cast tribes as part of the nation, not the sovereign nation in which they are, and infuriated many throughout the country of India.

"The majority (opinion) is not firmly rooted in the law I have devoted my life to studying and the history I know is true." Said Elizabeth Hidalgo Reese. She is an assistant professor of law at Stanford University in Nambepu Ebro, New Mexico. "And that's really worrisome."

Federal authorities have exclusive jurisdiction to investigate serious and violent crimes in many US settlements if the suspect or victim is Native American. Was mainly maintained. The High Court's 5-4 ruling in a case outside Oklahoma means that if the suspect is not Native American and the victim is Native American, the state shares that authority.

Criminal justice on tribal lands may already be an intertwined network, and the ruling is in jurisdiction, possible triple dangers, and remote areas lacking resources. It may raise new nasty questions about how to tackle complex crimes. The state had the power to prosecute crimes involving only non-natives in the settlement, even before this week's Supreme Court ruling.

"It affects the country of India, so only the future will tell if it's good," said Robert Arizona State University law professor and citizen Robert. Miller said. Eastern Shawnee. "More criminal charges, more governments commit crimes, or less."

Judge Neil Gorsuch has joined three liberal members of the court. He wrote a bitter objection, stating: On our own.

Cherokee Nation's chief secretary, Chuck Hoskin Jr., said the court "did not fulfill its obligations to keep the country's promises and, contrary to parliamentary legislation," illegally ignores Cherokee's sovereignty. " I accepted that. "

It is unclear how the decision will ultimately be made to the tribe, but there is precedent. Congress enacted a law known as PL-280 in 1953. This is to free the federal government from funding public security in some settlements. The law has given state authority over crime in several states, including Alaska and California. It is home to about three-fifths of the 574 federal-approved tribes.

Like the Oklahoma vs. Castro Fuerta decision, the tribes disagreed. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court at the time funded the expansion of state authority over tribal lands.

"It's not the first time," said Lauren van Sylphgard, a member of Cochitip Pueblo, New Mexico, who heads the Tribal Legal Development Clinic at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Federal law in India is littered with cases in which tribes have been denied the opportunity to speak for themselves."

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, federal authorities have said India. It has long been criticized for refusing to prosecute a lawsuit in the country. This is about one-third. PL-280 state officials have also been criticized for the lack of response to crimes in Indian countries, where law enforcement officers often have to travel long distances to investigate reported crimes.

A tribe is the appropriate sovereign body for the federal government to handle criminal issues in court filings and elsewhere, with political ties to the tribe through treaties and act of parliament. Insisted. Parliament maintains control over Native American and Alaska Native issues overseen by the Home Office.

The state has no such obligation to the tribes.

"One of the interesting things for me is how the priority questions are resolved," said Kevin Washburn, Dean of the University of Iowa Law School in Chickasaw. .. "That is, will the federal government take priority, and in some cases the prosecutor will take priority, and how will it determine who will be the first and who will move?" Washburn, assistant secretary of the interior, asked.

The Supreme Court's ruling is an expansion of state power, but no similar increase in tribes. A 1978 High Court ruling stripped the settlement of a tribe with criminal jurisdiction over non-indigenous peoples. With the re-approval of the Violence Against Women in 2013, some of its authority was restored in limited domestic violence cases and further expanded earlier this year.

Less than 1% of federal tribes in the United States have implemented that authority, one of the latest being the Salt River Pima-Marico Pine Indian Community on the outskirts of Phoenix. is. It increases the likelihood that tribes, states and federal governments will prosecute suspects of the same crime. Another US Supreme Court ruling issued last month said that members of a tribe charged in a particular tribal court could also be charged based on the same case in federal court.

Most tribes can sentence convicted criminals to one year's imprisonment, regardless of the crime. Federal law of 2010 extended the tribe's decision-making power to three years in a single offense, but few tribes meet the federal requirements to use that power. This includes the placement of public defenders, the enactment or renewal of criminal law, and the placement of law-trained judges.

Oklahoma is a tribe, including a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as McGart vs. Oklahoma, stating that much of the eastern part of the state remains native. It has its own history of issues. American settlement. The ruling, written by Gorsuch, prevented the state from prosecuting Native Americans accused of crimes on tribal lands, including most of Tulsa, the second largest city in the state with a population of approximately 413,000. rice field.

The Supreme Court refused to reconsider McGirt. Oklahoma hastily filed a petition related to this case, leading to the latest decision on the state's power over crimes in the settlement. Judge Brett Kavanaugh expressed his majority in favor, stating that the state's interests are in protecting all victims of crime. ..

Mayor of Tulsa G.T. Republican Bynum praised the ruling and promised to work with states and tribal countries that are "our partners in building safe cities."

-

Whitehurst was reported by Salt Lake City. Fonseca covers the indigenous issues of AP's racial and ethnic teams. Follow Whitehurst on Twitter withhttps://twitter.com/lwhitehurstで、Fonsecaをhttps://twitter.com/FonsecaAP