{"id":12238,"date":"2021-06-01T12:56:39","date_gmt":"2021-06-01T16:56:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indianz.com\/News\/?p=12238"},"modified":"2021-06-01T16:30:01","modified_gmt":"2021-06-01T20:30:01","slug":"supreme-court-backs-tribal-sovereignty-in-law-enforcement-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/indianz.com\/News\/2021\/06\/01\/supreme-court-backs-tribal-sovereignty-in-law-enforcement-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court backs tribal sovereignty in law enforcement case"},"content":{"rendered":"\"crowtribe\"\r\n
A Crow Nation police vehicle in Montana. Photo: Crow Tribe Police Department<\/figcaption>\r\n
Supreme Court backs tribal sovereignty in law enforcement case<\/div>\r\n
Tuesday, June 1, 2021<\/div>\r\n
By Acee Agoyo<\/div>\r\n
Indianz.Com<\/div>\r\n

<\/p>\r\nNote: This post will be updated throughout the day.<\/strong>\r\n

<\/p>\r\nThe nation’s highest court has unanimously sided with tribal sovereignty in one of two Indian law cases on the docket<\/a> during an otherwise quiet session.\r\n

<\/p>\r\nBy a vote of 9 to 0, the U.S. Supreme Court<\/a> on Tuesday confirmed that tribal police officers can stop and search non-Indians who are suspected of violating the law. The decision was clear-cut<\/a>, with the justices sending a message of support for the \u201cinherent\u201d sovereignty of Indian nations.\r\n

<\/p>\r\n\u201cLong ago we described Indian tribes as \u2018distinct, independent political communities\u2019 exercising sovereign authority,\u201d Justice Stephen G. Breyer<\/a> wrote for the court.\r\n

<\/p>\r\nAnd while the U.S. government has repeatedly restricted the ways in which tribes can exercise their sovereignty, the case in which a non-Indian was stopped by an officer from the Crow Tribe<\/a> does not fall into one of those situations, according to the court. Joshua James Cooley<\/a> was found with drugs, firearms and even a small child when he was pulled over on the Crow Reservation<\/a> in Montana.\r\n

<\/p>\r\n\u201cHere, no treaty or statute has explicitly divested Indian tribes of the policing authority at issue,\u201d Breyer wrote in the nine-page opinion<\/a>.\r\n

<\/p>\r\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t\"X\t\tX (formerly Twitter)\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\r\n

<\/p>\r\nDespite the overt win, the decision was tied to a precedent known as Montana v. United States<\/em><\/a>. In that case, the Supreme Court held that tribes, generally, lack jurisdiction over non-Indians.\r\n

<\/p>\r\nBut as Breyer pointed out, an exception arises in situations where a non-Indian is engaging in conduct that \u2018threatens or has some direct effect on … the health or welfare of the tribe. Activity that threatens public safety on reservations falls within the confines of Montana<\/em>, the high court confirmed.\r\n

<\/p>\r\n \u201cThe second exception we have just quoted fits the present case, almost like a glove,\u201d\r\nthe decision stated. \u201cThe phrase speaks of the protection of the \u201chealth or welfare of the tribe.\u2019\u201d\r\n

<\/p>\r\n \u201cTo deny a tribal police officer authority to search and detain for a reasonable time any person he or she believes may commit or has committed a crime would make it difficult for tribes to protect themselves against ongoing threats,\u201d continued Breyer, who was nominated to the court by Democratic former president Bill Clinton. \u201cSuch threats may be posed by, for instance, non-Indian drunk drivers, transporters of contraband, or other criminal offenders operating on roads within the boundaries of a tribal reservation.\u201d\r\n

<\/p>\r\n