{"id":25343,"date":"2022-06-20T15:16:07","date_gmt":"2022-06-20T19:16:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indianz.com\/News\/?p=25343"},"modified":"2022-06-20T15:16:08","modified_gmt":"2022-06-20T19:16:08","slug":"heather-whiteman-runs-him-supreme-court-rules-in-tribal-sovereignty-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/indianz.com\/News\/2022\/06\/20\/heather-whiteman-runs-him-supreme-court-rules-in-tribal-sovereignty-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Heather Whiteman Runs Him: Supreme Court rules in tribal sovereignty case"},"content":{"rendered":" \"U.S.<\/a>
A view of the U.S. Supreme Court. Artwork by Art Lien<\/figcaption>\r\n
Focusing on the meaning of \u201coffense,\u201d a divided court throws salt on double jeopardy claim<\/div>\r\n
Monday, June 20, 2022<\/div>\r\n
By Heather Whiteman Runs Him<\/div>\r\n
SCOTUSblog<\/div>\r\n
scotusblog.com<\/a><\/div>\r\n

<\/P>\r\nAn intriguingly divided<\/a> court ruled<\/a> last Monday in Denezpi v. United States<\/em><\/a>, upholding the federal court conviction of a defendant previously prosecuted and sentenced by a Court of Indian Offenses for charges stemming from the same incident. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined in part by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.\r\n

<\/P>\r\nThe majority\u2019s ruling turned not on the source of authority of the Court of Indian Offenses, but instead approached the case by looking to the relevant text in the Fifth Amendment\u2019s double jeopardy clause<\/a>. The source of authority for the laws defining the offenses in question were separate \u2013 tribal and federal \u2013 exercises of distinct sovereigns; therefore, Merle Denezpi\u2019s federal prosecution did not violate his right not to be twice in jeopardy for \u201cthe same offense.\u201d\r\n

<\/P>\r\nIn December 2017, Denezpi, a citizen of the Navajo Nation, was arrested for violent sexual offenses committed on the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation against V.Y., also a citizen of the Navajo Nation. Denezpi was initially charged with two violations of the Code of Federal Regulations and one violation of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Code in the Court of Indian Offenses for the Ute Mountain Ute Agency. He was sentenced to 140 days in jail, time he had already served, pursuant to an Alford plea<\/a> in connection with the tribal-code offense of assault and battery. \r\n

<\/P>\r\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\"Supreme\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\tSupreme Court winds down big term with first Indian law ruling\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\t

The nation\u2019s highest court is winding down a highly controversial term with a ruling hailed by advocates for Native women, the first of three decisions being anticipated in Indian Country.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/div>\n\t

\n\t\t\"Indianz.Com\"\t\tIndianz.Com\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\r\n

<\/P>\r\nSix months later, a federal court indicted Denezpi for a violation of a federal criminal statute pursuant to the same incident; he was ultimately convicted and sentenced to serve 30 years in prison. Denezpi asserted that the subsequent federal prosecution violated his right to be free from double jeopardy \u2013 to not be prosecuted twice for the same offense by the same sovereign. The district court rejected Denezpi\u2019s double jeopardy argument, and the U.S Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld the district court\u2019s ruling.\r\n

<\/P>\r\nDenezpi\u2019s petition for certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court on the question of whether the authority exercised by the Court of Indian Offenses of the Ute Mountain Ute Agency was an exercise of federal, rather than tribal, sovereignty, and thus in violation of his right to be free from double jeopardy. The Supreme Court rejected Denezpi\u2019s double jeopardy argument. Rather than determining the applicability of the dual sovereignty doctrine, the court looked to the text of the double jeopardy clause, the meaning of \u201coffense,\u201d and the sovereign authority of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe to define offenses as a matter of tribal law.\r\n

<\/P>\r\nDenezpi\u2019s arguments focused on the basis for the initial charges brought against him in the Court of Indian Offenses \u2013 and the very operation of the court itself \u2013 as federal rather than tribal. Therefore, Denezpi asserted, his subsequent indictment and prosecution in federal court violated his Fifth Amendment right to be free from double jeopardy. Conversely, the United States asserted that the sovereignty of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe was the source of authority for Denezpi\u2019s initial prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses, and that because the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is a separate sovereign from the United States, a subsequent federal prosecution did not violate Denezpi\u2019s double jeopardy rights. \r\n

<\/P>\r\nCiting the dual sovereignty doctrine at the outset and stating that it is not an \u201cexception\u201d to double jeopardy protections, Barrett\u2019s opinion for the majority noted a \u201ctwist\u201d in the case: Rather than a straightforward analysis of two separate sovereigns enforcing provisions of their own respective laws, this case potentially involved one sovereign enforcing both its own law and the law of a different sovereign. Although Barrett framed the issue in Denezpi as \u201carguably\u201d involving one sovereign enforcer and two sovereign sources of law, the question of the ultimate source of sovereign authority for the operation of the Court of Indian Offenses was not decided. Barrett\u2019s analysis turned not on who put the defendant in jeopardy, but instead on what put the defendant in jeopardy \u2013 the sovereign authority underlying the law defining the offense. \r\n

<\/P>\r\n