What's Happening?
Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have expressed a desire to overturn a 139-year-old Supreme Court ruling that grants the federal government authority over Native American tribes' internal affairs. This sentiment was articulated
in a dissenting opinion regarding the case Quentin Veneno, Jr. v. United States, which the Supreme Court declined to hear. Veneno, a member of the Jicarilla Apache Nation, was convicted of domestic assault on another tribe member. His attorney argued that the federal government's power does not extend to criminalizing intratribal conduct on Indian land, calling for the overturning of United States v. Kagama. The Kagama decision upheld the Major Crimes Act of 1885, placing certain crimes committed by Native Americans on Native territory under federal jurisdiction.
Why It's Important?
The dissent by Justices Gorsuch and Thomas highlights ongoing debates about the sovereignty of Native American tribes and the federal government's role in their internal affairs. Overturning United States v. Kagama could significantly alter the legal landscape, allowing tribes to exercise greater control over major crimes committed within their territories. This shift could empower tribes to manage their affairs without federal oversight, challenging longstanding precedents that have shaped federal-tribal relations. The potential change could impact legal frameworks governing Native American sovereignty and influence broader discussions on tribal rights and self-governance.
What's Next?
With the Supreme Court declining to hear the case, the lower court's ruling stands, maintaining the status quo regarding federal jurisdiction over certain crimes in Native American territories. However, the dissenting opinion suggests that the issue may resurface in future cases, as Justices Gorsuch and Thomas advocate for revisiting the plenary power theory established by Kagama. Legal experts and tribal leaders may continue to push for changes in the judicial approach to Native American sovereignty, potentially leading to new challenges and discussions in the courts.
Beyond the Headlines
The call to overturn Kagama reflects deeper issues of historical prejudice and the evolving understanding of tribal sovereignty. The dissent critiques the outdated notions underpinning the plenary power theory, urging the Court to confront decisions influenced by the prejudices of their times. This development could spark broader conversations about the ethical and legal dimensions of federal-tribal relations, encouraging a reevaluation of historical rulings that have long impacted Native American communities.
