This case displays an example of the prejudices of the Supreme Court against the indigenous Americans during 1978. Tribal courts previously were able to try non-Indians for offenses committed on tribal land. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1990) underwent three appeals; the Supreme Court case ruled against the Suquamish Tribe and called for further action. The Suquamish Tribe is located in the Port Madison Reservation in the state of Washington. Tribes assume their own constitutions modeled after the U.S. constitution, and are recognized as ‘sovereign’ under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. From 1934 to today the tribe is in an era of self-determination, in which they govern themselves. At the time of Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian …show more content…
Tribe (1978), under the Law and Order Code, the tribe possessed jurisdiction over all crimes in which occurred in the reservation perimeter. The disturbance which led to the Oliphant v.
Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) started at an annual Suquamish celebration, Chief Seattle Days, and ended with two non-native Americans arrests on tribal land. Tribal police at the event witnessed Mark David Oliphant intoxicated and attempted arrest to him for violating tribal laws. Nevertheless, Oliphant resisted the arrest and punched an officer in the face, therefore, he was also charged with assaulting a tribal officer. Daniel Belgarde’s encounter with tribal police accelerated to a high-speed chase. Belgarde collided with a tribal patrol car and was charged with recklessly endangering another person and injuring tribal …show more content…
property. Both men applied for writs of habeas corpus, in which they argued tribal court did not have jurisdiction over “non-Indians.” Attorneys of the men argued tribal courts did not have jurisdiction over “non-Indians.” The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington decided the Suquamish Indian Provisional Court did have jurisdiction over non-natives; Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also withheld the approval of the writs of habeas corpus. After both court’s decision favored the Suquamish Tribe, Oliphant appealed to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Indian Tribal Courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate or punish non-Indian citizens for offenses committed on tribal lands. However, they did not involve a decision on whether tribal officers have authority to arrest non-Indians on tribal lands. The Supreme Court also called upon congress to consider the issue of Tribal Courts trying non-Indians on tribal lands saying: ““We recognize that some Indian tribal court systems have become increasingly sophisticated and resemble in many respects their state counterparts.
We also acknowledge that with the passage of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which extends certain basic procedural rights to anyone tried in Indian tribal court, many of the dangers that might have accompanied the exercise by tribal courts of criminal jurisdiction over non- Indians only a few decades ago have disappeared. Finally, we are not unaware of the prevalence of non-Indian crime on today's reservations which the tribes forcefully argue requires the ability to try non-Indians. But these are considerations for Congress to weigh in deciding whether Indian tribes should finally be authorized to try non-Indians. They have little relevance to the principles which lead us to conclude that Indian tribes do not have inherent jurisdiction to try and to punish non-Indians” (Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978) Finally, after ensuing three retrials, the Supreme Court decided on a discriminatory ruling to preside until Congress passes laws to decide upon the
issue. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe influenced later cases such as Duro v. Reigna (1990); Duro allegedly murdered a Native American child on tribal lands. Tribal Courts tried Duro, however he applied for writs of habeas corpus. The Court concluded that a Native American tribe cannot try a Native American, who is a member of another tribe, for crimes committed on the reservation. Another case that Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) influenced was United States v. Lara (2004); in which Lara assaulted a tribal officer and was tried in Tribal Court. Lara was also tried in Federal Courts, charged with assaulting a federal officer for the incident that occurred with the tribal officer. The Supreme Court ruled Lara’s 5th Amendment right was violated by being charged with double jeopardy. The ternate trials of Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) were ultimately heard by the Supreme Court, along with the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Subsequently, Oliphant appealed to the Supreme Court when two inferior courts decided Tribal Courts possess the authority to adjudicate and punish non-indigenous citizens. The Supreme Court established a conclusion which overturned the inferior court’s ruling; Suquamish Indian Provisional Court could not adjudicate or execute punishment upon Oliphant. Upon attaining a conclusion, the Supreme Court summoned legislatures to enact laws regarding the jurisdiction of Tribal Courts over non-indigenous residents or visitors on tribal lands.
Inventing the Savage: The Social Construct of Native American Criminality. Luana Ross. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1998.
Fishing and hunting have been at the core of many American Indian cultures like the Nisqually since precontact. Indian hunting, fishing and gathering were conducted then—as they are now—not for sport, but for food and for a livelihood. This was well understood by the early colonists and later by the U.S. government. Thus, many of the treaties (e.g., Medicine Creek, 1854) negotiated between the federal government and Indian tribes in the nineteenth century contained provisions guaranteeing rights to hunt and fish. In the trea¬ty negotiated by Isaac Stevens, the tribe ceded to the U.S. some of the Nisqually vil¬lages and prairies, but Article Three reserved the tribe’s right to fish “at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations…in common with all citizens of the Territory.” (FL 12) But the growth of the European American population, and with it the proliferation of fenced lands, the destruction of natural habitat, and often the destruction of wildlife itself, drastically curtailed the Indians' ability to carry on these activities. Charles Wilkinson’s thesis declares that the “messages from Frank’s Landing” are “messages about ourselves, about the natural world, about societies past, about this society, and about societies to come.” (FL 6)
The Calder Case was the spark that led to the Canadian government recognizing Aboriginals and their rights. Firstly, the aboriginals used the Calder Case to inform the government that they were taking away their rights. The Calder Case was launched after the Attorney General of British Columbia declared “that the Aboriginal Title, other wise known as the Indian Title, of the Plaintiffs to their ancient tribal territory...has never been lawfully extinguished.”1 The statement made by the government claimed that the Aboriginal Title did not exist in the eyes of the law and before the Calder Case, it allowed them to ignore Aboriginal land rights all over the country. In addition, The Calder brought the issues the Aboriginals were facing with land claims to the attention of the Canadian government. “According to Kainai Board of Education The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where the court ended up rejecting the native's claims after being split on it's validity. However, the Supreme Court of Canada's recognition required new respect for Aboriginal land claims.”2 The Supreme Court of Canada's recognition of the Calder Case benefited the Aboriginals as the government was...
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
I wish I could forget it all, but the picture of six-hundred and forty-five wagons lumbering over the frozen ground with their cargo of suffering humanity still lingers in my memory.” He says that he wishes he had not seen what he saw on this trip and he wishes it did not happen. When the Cherokees appealed to the U.S. to protect their land, the Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that the states were not allowed to make laws that govern the Cherokees, only the federal government can. This meant that Georgia laws don’t involve the Cherokees. Many religious groups, like the Quakers, didn’t want to force Native Americans against their will to move from their homelands.
Throughout history the attacks on Native American sovereignty proved to be too much and eventually tribes had to submit. The problems Native American tribes faced when fighting for and dealing with sovereignty in the 18th century are identical to the problems they are facing today. These
Wilcox, B. (1996). Dennis Banks runs for justice on behalf or American Indian Rights. Metro, 14-20.Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://siouxme.com/lodge/banks.html
Garrison, Tim Alan. The Legal Ideology of Removal: The Southern Judiciary and the Sovereignty of Native American Nations Studies in the Legal History of the South. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2002.
Our Indian legislation generally rests on the principle, that the aborigines are to be kept in a condition of tutelage and treated as wards or children of the State. …the true interests of the aborigines and of the State alike require...
...ulted in widely ranged political and legal protests, including petitions to the Government and the Crown, legal challenges in defense of Aboriginal resource rights and land, and careful enforcing of the Indian Act’s regulations. The federal government often responded with harsh legislative measures to the Indian Act, such as outlawing the Potlatch (and subsequently, arresting those who publically continued to engage in cultural practices), and disallowing of hiring lawyers to pursue Aboriginal rights through court. The passage of such laws, however, did not stop Indigenous groups, and they continued to meet, organize, maintain cultural traditions, and retain respect for hereditary leaders. But, since they lived in such an oppressive society, the Canadian Government continued to have reign over their lives and their opportunities to participate in a broader society.
In order to understand the lack of morality on the part of the United States, the actions taken by the group in favor of removing the Indians and their opponents needs examining. The seeds of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 are rooted in colonial times and continued to grow during the early years of the American republic. To comprehend this momentous tragedy we must first examine the historical background of the Indian '"'problem'"' and seek rationale for the American government"'"s actions. This includes looking at the men who politically justified the expulsion of the Cherokee nation and those who argued against it.
For Status Indians various activities have expanded nearby control under the Indian Act and permitted the arrangement of new administrative structures to supplant that act. On the other hand, numerous First Nations keep up that any type of assigned power is conflicting with an intrinsic right of self-government. Inuit have sought after self-government through open government courses of action in the north in conjunction with area claims, while the Métis have progressed different cases for area and self-government. Native people groups have additionally drawn on the privilege of self-determination and worldwide law to bolster their cases. The creating assemblage of global law on human rights has concentrated much consideration, as of late, on the privilege to self-determination as it applies to Aboriginal people groups. Native associations have contended that the characteristic right of self-government is a part of the privilege of self-determination perceived in the United Nations Charter and in the Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous
... of sex crimes. Furthermore, granting tribes full authority to prosecute any crime may create injustice for accused non-native individuals as well as creating more complication between tribes (Gede, 2012).
Sandefur, G. (n.d.). American Indian reservations: The first underclass areas? Retrieved April 28, 2014, from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc121f.pdf
In the beginning the settlers created the heavens and the earth. For, America was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the continent. Why is it that we look at the early settlers with such admiration? We view them like gods, where America didn’t exist until they came along; and, once they finally made it through that first thanksgiving turkey, then only good ever came about because of them. Now, you may be saying to yourself: “Thank goodness I’m more educated than that! I know that they were mortal, and even killed Native Americans sometimes.” But do you know what really happened? Do you actually care about the Native Americans more than just being sorry they’re on reserves?