Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe

Background

This dispute involved the Suquamish Indian Tribe and two non-Indian residents of the Port Madison Reservation, Mark Oliphant and Daniel Belgarde, who were arrested and charged under the Tribe’s Law and Order Code. The tribal court had arrested and arraigned them, but federal habeas petitions and appeals followed. Lower federal courts rejected the petitions, and the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether tribal criminal courts can try non-Indians.

Reasoning

The central question was whether tribal courts have inherent power to try non-Indians who commit offenses on reservation land. The Court concluded they do not. It relied on historical treaties and federal statutes, long-standing executive and congressional practice, and the principle that tribes’ retained powers are limited when they are under the United States’ sovereignty. The opinion noted that statutes like the Trade and Intercourse Acts, the Major Crimes Act, treaty language, and Congress’ and the Executive’s repeated assumptions point to federal responsibility for prosecuting non-Indians. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 gives procedural protections but does not grant tribal criminal authority over non-Indians.

Real world impact

As a result, non-Indian residents on reservations generally cannot be criminally tried in tribal courts; prosecution of crimes by non-Indians will fall to federal or state authorities unless Congress explicitly authorizes otherwise. The Court recognized concerns about reservation crime but said those policy choices belong to Congress, not the courts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by the Chief Justice, dissented, arguing tribes retain as a matter of their retained sovereignty the power to try and punish those who offend on reservation lands absent clear congressional withdrawal.