Cooley<\/em> is anything but simple.\r\n<\/p>\r\nCases like Cooley<\/em> make Indian Country seem like a truly different country with fundamentally different laws than the rest of the United States. Not only is the court considering whether tribal officers even have Terry stop-and-search authority over non-Indians, but the on-the-ground realities of assessing Indian status also play a large \u2014 and somewhat awkward \u2014 role in the case. Indeed, the district court held that the police officer broke the law by not letting his initial assumption about the defendant\u2019s race change his conduct. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, by contrast, held that the officer\u2019s mistake was that the first words out of his mouth weren\u2019t \u201cAre you an Indian, sir?\u201d \r\n<\/p>\r\nAnd at oral argument on Tuesday, the Supreme Court may consider everything from the impact of conquest on the Crow Tribe\u2019s<\/a> inherent sovereignty, to different spheres of government powers, treaties and statutes, to just how tribal officers can or should determine Indian status on the spot.\r\n<\/p>\r\nCooley<\/em> is a messy and complex case \u2013 even by Indian law standards \u2013 that the court may struggle to resolve cleanly. For court watchers coming off last term\u2019s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma<\/em><\/a>, this will likely be a sobering wake-up call as the court tries to navigate not the clear terms of a treaty or the developments of history but the mess it\u2019s made with its common law.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
![\"supremecourt\"](\"https:\/\/indianz.com\/News\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/22\/supremecourt-scaled.jpg\")
\r\n