SCOTUS News

In the first major opinion in decades on the scope of the sovereignty of American Indian tribes, the Supreme Court hold Tuesday at United States v. Curry Tribal governments — and their police — have the power to search and temporarily detain non-Indians suspected of violating federal or state laws on the reservation. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito submitted a brief consent form, stating that he believed the shareholding was limited.

The defendant in the case, Joshua James Cooley, was arrested after a tribal police officer noticed him on the side of a federal highway that runs through the Raven Indian Reservation in Montana. The official found evidence that led to federal drug and gun prosecutions. Cooley argued that the evidence was obtained illegally because tribal officials did not have the power to detain and search him. The defense suggested that the police officer should assess Cooley’s Indian identity, and then make him continue to realize that he is a non-Indian, unless the police officer voluntarily witnesses him committing a crime-US prosecutors believe that this framework is not feasible and unsafe for military officers and tribal communities.

Over the years, the courts have made it clear that tribal governments no longer have certain powers, especially those involving the rights of non-Indians.in Cooley, The court was required to resolve the scope of application of tribal security powers in various frameworks it established to determine whether tribal sovereignty still extends to certain powers. Cooley It also forced the court to face up to some of the more confusing realities created by its precedent, such as whether it is necessary or even possible to assess the suspect’s Indian identity during routine traffic stops.

Breyer’s opinion focuses on and may extend the scope of the court’s decision Montana v. United States. in Montana, The court stipulated the general rule that the tribe no longer retains its inherent governmental power over the actions of non-Indians, but determined two exceptions to this rule. Breyer explained that the second exception “applies to the current situation, almost like a glove.” The second exception admits that if the actions of non-Indians “threate or directly affect the political integrity, economic security or health of the tribe or Welfare”, the tribe must also retain the right to act against non-Indians. The power to temporarily detain and search non-Indians on tribal highways is the right that the tribe must retain against non-Indians to prevent their health and welfare from being threatened. Breyer wrote that without the power to stop and search non-Indians on tribal highways, “tribes will find it difficult to protect themselves from constant threats,” such as “non-Indian drunk drivers, contraband transporters or other criminals on the highways. Activities”. Roads within the boundaries of tribal reservations. “

Please check back as soon as possible for an in-depth analysis of opinions.