Law | National

Native women hail Supreme Court decision on domestic violence

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Native women rallied at the U.S. Supreme Court on December 7, 2015, as the justices heard arguments in Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. Photo by Indianz.Com

The U.S. Supreme Court issued the final decisions from its historic term on Monday with a ruling that Native women say will help protect survivors of domestic violence.

By 6-2 vote, the justices upheld the reach of a federal law that bars domestic violence offenders from possessing firearms. Two men tried to carve out an exception, arguing that their misdemeanor convictions were "reckless" rather than knowing or intentional.

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan rejected that line of thinking. Congress did not intend to exclude anyone -- including those convicted of domestic violence in tribal courts -- when it passed the firearms ban more than 20 years ago, she said.

"Congress enacted §922(g)(9) in order to prohibit domestic abusers convicted under run-of- the-mill misdemeanor assault and battery laws from possessing guns," Kagan wrote in reference to the federal law at issue in the case. "Because fully two-thirds of such state laws extend to recklessness, construing §922(g)(9) to exclude crimes committed with that state of mind would substantially undermine the provision’s design."

The decision falls in line with the arguments presented by the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, one of the leading voices in the effort to protect victims of violence in Indian Country. The group's brief was among the first to be circulated among the justices before oral arguments earlier this year.

“This is a resounding victory for survivors of domestic violence,” Cherrah Giles, the president of the group's board said in a press release. “In Indian Country, where Native women suffer from domestic violence at rates higher than any other demographic, we are painfully aware of the fact that domestic violence perpetrators escalate their violent acts over time, and what may begin with a reckless act often progresses to violence that results in severe injuries or fatalities at the hands of a domestic abuser.”

Six tribes signed onto NIWRC's brief, which was authored by attorneys at the Pipestem Law firm in Washington, D.C. Included were the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, whose domestic violence laws acknowledge that victimization can occur in different forms, whether reckless, knowing or intentional.

"The Tulalip Tribes stands with Indian Country to celebrate this decision," Chairman Mel Sheldon Jr. said.

Indianz.Com SoundCloud: U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments in Voisine v. United States February 29, 2016

The case hit home for the tribe, one of whose members was successfully prosecuted in federal court for possessing a firearm despite being subject to a domestic violence order in Tulalip court. Raymond Lee Fryberg, Jr. was sentenced to two years for illegally acquiring guns, one of which was used in a fatal school shooting near the reservation.

Fryberg was convicted under a provision in federal law that is similar to but not exactly the same as the one at issue in the Supreme Court's case. But both provisions are found in the the same section of the U.S. Code that recognizes domestic violence convictions in "any" court -- including those in Indian Country.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Voisine ensures that tribal nations will not lose the ability to ensure that all individuals convicted of domestic violence crimes are prohibited from owning or possessing a gun," attorney Mary Kathryn Nagle of Pipestem Law said.

Kagan's decision was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen G. Breyer and Justice Samuel Alito. The six members represent the liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning members of the court.

Justice Clarence Thomas, not surprisingly, authored a somewhat lengthy dissent that criticized the majority for embracing an "overbroad" definition of what constitutes the "use of physical force" under the law at issue in the case. He also went further and said the decision undermined the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution by limiting who can and cannot bear arms.

"Instead, under the majority’s approach, a parent who has a car accident because he sent a text message while driving can lose his right to bear arms forever if his wife or child suffers the slightest injury from the crash," Thomas wrote in his 19-page dissent.

In what would appear to be an unlikely pairing, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Thomas in the dissent. But she did not associate herself with the parts about the Second Amendment.

The National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center submitted three briefs to the Supreme Court during the October 2015 term. The outcomes in all three cases -- in Voisine, in Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, tribal jurisdiction case; and in US v. Bryant, another domestic violence case -- went in favor of tribal interests.

U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
Voisine v. United States (June 27, 2016)

U.S. Supreme Court Documents:
Docket Sheet No. 14-10154 | Questions Presented | Oral Argument Transcript