United States v. Wheeler

Background

A Navajo man was arrested on a reservation school campus in October 1974 and pleaded guilty in tribal court to disorderly conduct and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, receiving short jail terms and small fines. More than a year later a federal grand jury indicted him under the Major Crimes Act for statutory rape arising from the same incident. The tribal conviction had already been entered, the federal indictment followed, and lower federal courts dismissed the federal case based on double jeopardy principles, leading to review by the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a tribal conviction prevents a later federal prosecution for the same conduct. The Court answered no. It explained that Indian tribes retain aspects of their original, limited sovereignty, including the power to make and enforce criminal laws for their members. Because tribes and the United States derive authority from different sources, prosecutions by each are by separate sovereigns. The Court applied the same “dual sovereignty” idea it used for States and the Federal Government and held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a federal prosecution after a tribal one. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and allowed the federal case to proceed.

Real world impact

The decision preserves federal authority to prosecute serious crimes on reservations even when a tribal court has already punished a defendant for a lesser offense. Tribal courts remain important for enforcing local rules, but tribal convictions generally will not prevent later federal Major Crimes prosecutions; the case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.