{"id":21300,"date":"2022-02-22T09:29:40","date_gmt":"2022-02-22T14:29:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indianz.com\/News\/?p=21300"},"modified":"2022-02-22T09:30:48","modified_gmt":"2022-02-22T14:30:48","slug":"scotusblog-supreme-court-takes-up-tribal-sovereignty-matter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/indianz.com\/News\/2022\/02\/22\/scotusblog-supreme-court-takes-up-tribal-sovereignty-matter\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUSBlog: Supreme Court takes up tribal sovereignty dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"\"Ute<\/a>
The Ute Mountain Ute Reservation in Colorado. Photo: risingthermals<\/a><\/figcaption>\r\n
Court will assess double-jeopardy claim with implications for tribal sovereignty<\/div>\r\n
Tuesday, February 22, 2022<\/div>\r\n
By Heather Whiteman Runs Him<\/div>\r\n
SCOTUSBlog<\/div>\r\n
scotusblog.com<\/a><\/div>\r\n

<\/p>\r\nCrimes against indigenous women are the subject of increasing public concern and awareness. Government officials \u2013 tribal, federal, and state \u2013 have established initiatives to address the disturbingly disproportionate rates of violent crimes perpetrated against indigenous women. \r\n

<\/p>\r\nThe tools these governments have at their disposal are often limited by a criminal justice system and jurisdictional framework in Indian Country that is complex and historically unresponsive to the needs of Indian people. Because federal statutes and court decisions have limited the criminal jurisdictional authority of Indian tribes, effectively addressing crimes that occur on reservations \u2013 even crimes involving sexual violence against indigenous women \u2013 is often beyond a tribe\u2019s jurisdictional powers, and tribal citizens routinely face long delays in federal prosecution of even the most alarming offenses. Tribal courts are often the only immediately available forum to address violent crime in Indian Country, but the sentences they can impose are extremely limited and often insufficient.

<\/P>\r\nOn Tuesday, in Denezpi v. United States<\/a><\/em>, the Supreme Court will examine whether a previous action in the Court of Indian Offenses of the Ute Mountain Ute Agency for criminal acts committed on the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation prevents the United States from bringing criminal charges against a defendant in federal court for the same act. The Fifth Amendment of U.S. Constitution protects individuals from being prosecuted twice for the same offense \u2013 the right to be free of double jeopardy. Merle Denezpi, the defendant in the underlying cases, asserts that his prosecution in federal court after a conviction in the Court of Indian Offenses violated his right under that constitutional provision. The outcome of the case will depend on what sovereign \u2013 tribal or federal \u2013 is the source of authority for Denezpi\u2019s initial prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses.  

<\/P>\r\n

Supreme Court Day Call and Question Presented: Denezpi v. United States<\/div>\r\n
\r\n
supremecourtdaycall022222<\/a><\/div>\r\n<\/div>
\r\n
20-07622qp<\/a><\/div>\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n

<\/p>\r\nDenezpi, a citizen of the Navajo Nation, is accused of a July 2017 sexual offense against V.Y., also a Navajo Nation citizen, on the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation, which is located in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. He was arrested and charged by a federal law enforcement officer with violations of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Code and the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. In December 2017, Denezpi entered an Alford<\/a> <\/em>plea to a single count of assault and battery, a criminal offense under the tribal code, before the Court of Indian Offenses. Under an Alford<\/em> plea, Denezpi did not concede his guilt, but acknowledged that the evidence against him would likely result in a guilty verdict at trial.

<\/P>\r\nDenezpi was sentenced to 140 days by the Court of Indian Offenses pursuant to that plea, time he had already served in custody. Six months later, Denezpi was indicted by a federal grand jury for the federal offense of aggravated sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1153(a)(1) and (2)<\/a> in connection with the same incident he previously pleaded guilty to in the Court of Indian Offenses. Denezpi\u2019s motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds was denied. He was tried and convicted by a jury in federal district court and sentenced to 360 months in prison, followed by 10 years of supervised release. Denezpi appealed the federal conviction, again asserting that the federal court prosecution violated his double jeopardy rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against Denezpi, and he petitioned the Supreme Court for review. The justices granted review on Oct. 18, 2021, and the case will be heard on Feb. 22, 2022.

<\/P>\r\nHow is it possible that the sentence rendered by the Court of Indian Offenses was dramatically less severe than the sentence rendered in federal court? In 1968, Congress passed the Indian Civil Rights Act<\/a>, which limited the criminal sentencing authority of Indian tribes to one year. The statute was later amended to allow, in limited situations, tribal court sentences of up to three years. This restriction applies to all tribal courts, including Courts of Indian Offenses.

<\/P>\r\n

Amid a high-stakes political battle, the nation\u2019s highest court is gearing up for some major decisions that will affect Indian Country for generations to come. #SupremeCourt<\/a> #TribalSovereignty<\/a> https:\/\/t.co\/bM99nIyj0Y<\/a><\/p>— indianz.com (@indianz) February 22, 2022<\/a><\/blockquote>