Native women and their supporters rallied at the U.S. Supreme Court on December 7, 2015, as the justices heard Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, a tribal jurisdiction case. Photo by Indianz.Com

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in US v. Bryant on Tuesday but had few questions for both sides in the closely-watched Indian law case. Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog believes the quiet bench bodes well for a federal law that allows tribal court convictions to be used against offenders who repeatedly abuse Indian women:

The Supreme Court is often described as a “hot bench” – a place where the questions fly fast and furious. But when the Court heard oral arguments today in the case of Michael Bryant, it was more like a lukewarm bench: three of the eight Justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Elena Kagan – did not ask any questions at all, and the five Justices who did ask questions had far fewer than we would normally expect. What was scheduled as a sixty-minute argument took only forty-four, with lawyers for both sides sitting down before their time was up. Although the relative dearth of questions in the case makes it harder to make predictions about the outcome of the case with any confidence, it seems likely that the Court will reject Bryant’s challenge, and the government will prevail.

At issue in the case was whether the Constitution allows the federal government to use Bryant’s numerous domestic-violence convictions to prosecute him under Section 117(a) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which makes it a federal crime to “commit a domestic assault within . . . Indian country” if you already have “a final conviction on at least 2 separate prior occasions in Federal, State, or Indian tribal court proceedings for” domestic-violence offenses. If Bryant had been tried in a state or federal court and sentenced to prison time, he would have had a right under the Sixth Amendment to have a lawyer appointed to represent him; if he didn’t get a lawyer, those convictions could not be used to subject him to charges under Section 117(a). But the domestic-violence convictions on which the government is trying to rely in Bryant’s case came in tribal court, where the Sixth Amendment does not apply and Bryant was therefore not entitled to have a lawyer appointed to represent him. Bryant contends that, even if the tribal-court convictions themselves did not violate the Constitution, using those convictions to expose him to a prosecution under Section 117(a) does violate the Sixth Amendment.

Get the Story:
Argument analysis by Amy Howe: A quiet bench on uncounseled tribal-court convictions (SCOTUSBlog 4/19)

Supreme Court Documents:
Oral Argument Transcript | Docket Sheet No. 15-420: US v. Bryant | Question Presented

8th Circuit Decisions:
US v Harlan (February 16, 2016)
US v. Cavanaugh (July 6, 2011)

9th Circuit Decisions:
US v. Bryant (July 6, 2015)
US v. Bryant (September 30, 2014)

10th Circuit Decision:
US v. Shavanaux (July 26, 2011)

Related Stories:
Supreme Court case prompts defense of tribal judiciary systems (4/19)
Turtle Talk: Commentary on oral argument in Supreme Court case (4/19)
Supreme Court ready to hear fourth Indian law case on the docket (4/18)
Bill in Senate expands tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders (04/14)
Mary Annette Pember: Missing and murdered Indian women go forgotten (04/14)
Native Sun News: Wheels of justice slow for Oglala Sioux woman (04/08)
Vacancy on Supreme Court already impacts high-profile cases (03/30)
Leader of Navajo Nation pushes for action on Supreme Court pick (03/22)
Chair of Sault Ste. Marie Tribe calls for action on court nominee (03/17)
Supreme Court nominee comes with some Indian law experience (03/16)
Editorial: Scales of justice often lean wrong way for Indian people (03/15)
Alaska Natives seek fair consideration of Supreme Court nominee (03/14)
Supreme Court schedules hearing in Indian Country domestic violence case (03/11)
Diane Humetewa not under consideration for Supreme Court seat (3/11)
Gyasi Ross: Nominate Diane Humetewa to serve on Supreme Court (03/09)
Joe Biden: Senate Republicans must act on pick for Supreme Court (03/04)
Aaron Payment: Tribal sovereignty hangs in the balance at Supreme Court (02/29)
Steve Russell: Looking for an unbiased justice on Supreme Court (02/29)
Steven Newcomb: Justice Scalia didn't know anything about Indian law (02/26)
Updates from Day 2 of National Congress of American Indians winter session in D.C. (02/24)
Stakes raised as Supreme Court weighs domestic violence case (2/16)
John Lavelle: Supreme Court weighs key tribal sovereignty issue (2/10)
Samuel Winder: Indian defendants face harsher criminal penalties (2/4)
Ex-US Attorney welcomes review of domestic violence case (12/17)
Supreme Court agrees to review yet another Indian law dispute (12/14)
Former US Attorney backs review of domestic violence case (11/13)
Obama asks Supreme Court to hear domestic violence case (11/11)
Vice President Joe Biden reflects on triumphs of Obama's Indian policies (10/28)
Tribes still waiting on funds from Violence Against Women Act (10/16)
Pioneering tribes share experiences with prosecuting non-Indians (10/7)
DOJ awards $97M in grants for public safety in Indian Country (09/16)
Alaska to recognize tribal domestic violence protection orders (07/31)
Congress fails to provide funds to help tribes comply with VAWA (07/29)
Ambassador Harper discusses violence against indigenous women (07/09)
9th Circuit divided on tribal convictions in domestic violence cases (7/7)
Native Sun News: Oglala leader blames deaths on domestic violence (07/06)
Supreme Court won't accept tribal domestic violence case (3/19)
Supreme Court won't hear Indian domestic violence case (02/21)
Two Indian domestic violence cases before Supreme Court (12/12)
10th Circuit allows use of tribal court conviction in federal court (7/27)
8th Circuit accepts tribal court convictions for federal prosecution (7/7)