State-Tribal Relations

Case in Brief: United States v. Lara (2004)

After respondent Lara, an Indian who is not a member of the Spirit Lake Tribe (Tribe) ignored the Tribe’s order excluding him from the reservation, he struck one of the federal officer’s arresting him. He pled guilty in tribal court to the crime of violence to a policeman. The federal government then charged him with the federal crime of assaulting a federal officer. Lara claimed that, because key elements of that crime were the same as elements of the tribal crime, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prevented the federal government’s prosecution. The federal government claimed that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns.

Q.        What was the case about?

A.        Respondent Lara is an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in north-central North Dakota. He married a member of a different tribe, the Spirit Lake Tribe, and lived with his wife and children on the Spirit Lake Reservation, also located in North Dakota. After several incidents of serious misconduct, the Spirit Lake Tribe issued an order excluding Lara from the reservation. Lara ignored the order and federal officers stopped him. He struck one of the arresting officers.

The Spirit Lake Tribe prosecuted Lara in their tribal court for “violence to a policeman,” and Lara pled guilty and served 90 days in jail. After the tribal conviction, the federal government charged Lara in the Federal District Court for the District of North Dakota with the federal crime of assaulting a police officer.

Lara claimed that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibited this second prosecution of a federal crime that mirrored the elements of the tribal crime of “violence to a policeman.” The government noted that an Indian tribe acts as a separate sovereign when it prosecutes its own members. Congress’ enactment of a new statute, an amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, evidenced a clear intention to restore to the tribes an inherent sovereign power to prosecute non-member Indians.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the tribe acted in its capacity as a sovereign authority, and therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not prohibit the federal government from proceeding with the present prosecution for a discrete federal offense.

Q.        What did the U.S. District Court say?

A.        The Federal District Court for the District of North Dakota accepted the federal government’s position that the tribe had exercised its own tribal authority, and not delegated federal authority, and barred Lara’s Double Jeopardy Claim.

Q.        What did the U.S. Court of Appeals say?

A.        The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, sitting en banc, by a vote of 7 to 4, held that the tribal court, in prosecuting Lara, was exercising a federal prosecutorial power; hence, the dual sovereignty doctrine does not apply, and the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the second prosecution.

Q.        What did the U.S. Supreme Court say?

A.        The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, stating that Congress has the constitutional power to lift the restrictions on the tribes’ criminal jurisdiction over non-member Indians. The Court stated that the new statute, in permitting a tribe to bring certain tribal prosecutions against non-member Indians, does not purport to delegate the federal government’s own federal power. Rather, it enlarges the tribe’s own “powers of self-government” to include “the inherent power of Indian tribes, hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians,” including non-members.

The Court concluded that Congress had constitutional authority to lift the restrictions on the tribes’ criminal jurisdiction over non-member Indians as prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the Constitution was found to authorize Congress to permit tribes, as an exercise of their inherent tribal authority, to prosecute non-member Indians. As a result, the Spirit Lake Tribe’s prosecution of Lara did not amount to an exercise of federal power, and the tribe acted in its capacity of a separate sovereign. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the federal government from proceeding with the present prosecution for a discrete federal offense.

Q.        What does this ruling mean for other states and tribes?

A.        Indian tribes can prosecute non-member Indians who commit crimes on their reservations. Because this power to prosecute is not delegated from the federal government, both the tribe and the federal government can prosecute the crime as “separate sovereigns,” without offending the Double Jeopardy Clause of Constitution.

Case Citation:
U.S. v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004)

For More Information:
Contact Andrea Wilkins of NCSL's State-Tribal Relations Project at 303-856-1558 or State-Tribal Relations Program.

 Return to Case in Brief Menu page

 Return to the State-Tribal Relations Home page