United States v. Bryant

Background

Congress enacted a federal law to address high rates of domestic violence against Native American women by making domestic assault in Indian country a felony when the defendant has at least two prior convictions in federal, state, or tribal court. Michael Bryant had multiple tribal-court convictions for domestic assault, mostly punished by imprisonment of one year or less. Because tribal courts must provide appointed counsel only when sentences exceed one year under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Bryant’s prior convictions were entered without appointed counsel but in compliance with ICRA. After new assaults in 2011, he was indicted under the federal habitual-offender statute and challenged use of his uncounseled tribal convictions as predicate offenses.

Reasoning

The Court confronted whether using those tribal convictions in a §117(a) prosecution violates the Constitution. The Court relied on Nichols, which holds that convictions valid when entered remain valid when used for later enhancement. Burgett bars using convictions that were unconstitutional when obtained, but Bryant’s tribal convictions complied with ICRA and therefore did not violate the Sixth Amendment at the time. ICRA also guarantees due process protections and federal habeas review. The Court concluded that invoking valid tribal convictions as predicates did not deprive Bryant of the Sixth Amendment right or of due process.

Real world impact

The decision allows prosecutors to rely on tribal-court domestic-violence convictions that complied with ICRA when proving the prior-conviction element of the federal habitual-offender offense. That makes it easier to pursue longer federal penalties for repeat domestic abusers in Indian country. The ruling resolves a circuit split and was not a ruling on the fairness of any particular tribal proceeding.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas concurred but wrote separately to question broader assumptions about tribal sovereignty and Congress’s expansive authority over Indian affairs, urging reexamination of long-standing precedents.