UNITED STATES v. LARA · Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004) Opinion of the Court After Lara's tribal conviction, the Federal Government charged Lara in the Federal District Court for the

OCTOBER TERM, 2003

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. LARACERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-107. Argued January 21, 2004-Decided April 19, 2004

After respondent Lara, an Indian who is not a member of the Spirit LakeTribe (Tribe), ignored the Tribe's order excluding him from its reserva-tion, he struck one of the federal officers arresting him. He pleadedguilty in Tribal Court to the crime of violence to a policeman. TheFederal Government then charged him with the federal crime of assault-ing a federal officer. Lara claimed that, because key elements of thatcrime mirrored elements of his tribal crime, he was protected by theDouble Jeopardy Clause. The Government countered that the Clausedoes not bar successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns, and thatthis "dual sovereignty" doctrine determined the outcome. The Govern-ment noted that this Court has held that a tribe acts as a separatesovereign in prosecuting its own members, United States v. Wheeler,435 U. S. 313, 318, 322-323; that, after this Court ruled that a tribelacks sovereign authority to prosecute nonmember Indians, see Duro v.Reina, 495 U. S. 676, 679, Congress specifically authorized such prosecu-tions; and that, because this statute enlarges the tribes' self-governmentpowers to include "the inherent power of Indian tribes ... to exercisecriminal jurisdiction over all Indians," 25 U. S. C. § 1301(2), the Tribehere had exercised its own tribal authority, not delegated federalauthority. Accepting this argument, the Magistrate Judge rejectedLara's double jeopardy claim. The en banc Eighth Circuit reversed,holding that the "dual sovereignty" doctrine did not apply because theTribal Court was exercising a federal prosecutorial power, and, thus,the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the second prosecution.

Held: Because the Tribe acted in its capacity as a sovereign authority, theDouble Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the Federal Government fromproceeding with the present prosecution for a discrete federal offense.Pp. 199-210.

(a) Congress has the constitutional power to lift the restrictions onthe tribes' criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians. Pp. 199-207.

(1) Section 1301(2) "recognize[s] and affirm[s]" in each tribe the "in-herent power" to prosecute nonmember Indians, and its legislative his-tory confirms that such was Congress' intent. Thus, it seeks to adjustthe tribes' status, relaxing restrictions, recognized in Duro, that the

UNITED STATES v. LARA

Syllabus

political branches had imposed on the tribes' exercise of inherent prose-cutorial power. Pp. 199-200.

(2) Several considerations lead to the conclusion that Congress hasthe constitutional power to lift these restrictions. First, the Constitu-tion, through the Indian Commerce and Treaty Clauses, grants Con-gress "plenary and exclusive" powers to legislate in respect to Indiantribes. E. g., Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of YakimaNation, 439 U. S. 463, 470-471. Second, Congress, with this Court'sapproval, has interpreted these plenary grants of power as authorizingit to enact legislation that both restricts tribal powers and, in turn,relaxes those restrictions. Third, Congress' statutory goal-to modifythe degree of autonomy enjoyed by a dependent sovereign that is not aState-is not an unusual legislative objective. Fourth, Lara points tono explicit language in the Constitution suggesting a limitation on Con-gress' institutional authority to relax tribal sovereignty restrictions pre-viously imposed by the political branches. Fifth, the change at issue islimited, concerning a power similar to the power to prosecute a tribe'sown members, which this Court has called inherent. Sixth, concludingthat Congress has the power to relax the restrictions imposed by thepolitical branches on the tribes' inherent prosecutorial authority is con-sistent with this Court's earlier cases. The holdings in Wheeler, supra,at 326; Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U. S. 191, 209-210; and Duro,supra, at 686, that the tribes' power to prosecute nonmembers was di-vested by treaties and Congress, reflected the Court's view of the tribes'retained sovereign status at the time of those decisions; but they didnot set forth constitutional limits prohibiting Congress from taking ac-tions to modify or adjust that status. The Court there based its de-scriptions of inherent tribal authority on the sources as they existed atthe time. Congressional legislation was one such important source, butit is a source subject to change. When Duro, supra, at 686, like othercases, referred to a statute that "delegated" power to the tribes, it sim-ply did not consider whether a statute could constitutionally achieve thesame end by removing restrictions on the tribes' inherent authority.Thus, none of those cases can be read to hold that the Constitutionforbids Congress to change judicially made federal Indian law throughan amendment to § 1301(2). Wheeler, Oliphant, and Duro, then, are notdeterminative because Congress has enacted a new statute, relaxingrestrictions on the bounds of the inherent tribal authority the UnitedStates recognizes. Pp. 200-207.

(b) Lara's additional arguments cannot help him win his double jeop-ardy claim. This Court will not consider the merits of his due processclaim that his prosecution was invalid because the Indian Civil RightsAct of 1968 does not guarantee counsel to an indigent criminal defend-

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)

Syllabus

ant. Proving that claim does not show that the source of the tribalprosecution was federal power, something Lara must do to win his dou-ble jeopardy claim. Like the due process claim, Lara's argument thatthe phrase "all Indians" in "inherent power . . . to exercise criminaljurisdiction over all Indians" violates the Equal Protection Clause isbeside the point. And Lara simply repeats these due process and equalprotection arguments in a different form when he argues that the DuroCourt found the absence of certain constitutional safeguards, such as anindigent defendant's right to counsel, an important reason for concludingthat tribes lacked the "inherent power" to try nonmember Indians.Pp. 207-209.

324 F. 3d 635, reversed.

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST,C. J., and STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J.,filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 210. KENNEDY, J., post, p. 211, andTHOMAS, J., post, p. 214, filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Sou-TER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined, post, p. 226.

Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler argued the cause forthe United States. On the briefs were Solicitor GeneralOlson, Assistant Attorney General Wray, Deputy Solici-tor General Dreeben, Barbara McDowell, and Richard A.Friedman.

Alexander F. Reichert, by appointment of the Court, 540U. S. 980, argued the cause for respondent. With him on thebrief were Ronald A. Reichert and James E. Smith.*

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Idaho

et al. by Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General of Idaho, and Clay R.Smith, Deputy Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for theirrespective States as follows: William H. Pryor, Jr., of Alabama, RichardP. Ieyoub of Louisiana, Jon Bruning of Nebraska, Larry Long of SouthDakota, and Mark Lt Shurtleff of Utah; for the State of Washington et al.by Christine 0. Gregoire, Attorney General of Washington, Robert K. Cos-tello, Deputy Attorney General, and William Berggren Collins, SeniorAssistant Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their re-spective States as follows: Terry Goddard of Arizona, Bill Lockyer of Cali-fornia, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Michael A. Cox of Michigan, Mike Mc-Grath of Montana, Patricia A. Madrid of New Mexico, and Hardy Myersof Oregon; for the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe of North Dakota et al. by TracyLabin, Richard Guest, and Charles A Hobbs; and for the National Con-


Opinion of the Court

JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.This case concerns a congressional statute "recogniz[ing]

and affirm[ing]" the "inherent" authority of a tribe to bringa criminal misdemeanor prosecution against an Indian whois not a member of that tribe-authority that this Court pre-viously held a tribe did not possess. Compare 25 U. S. C.§ 1301(2) with Duro v. Reina, 495 U. S. 676 (1990). We mustdecide whether Congress has the constitutional power torelax restrictions that the political branches have, over time,placed on the exercise of a tribe's inherent legal authority.We conclude that Congress does possess this power.

IRespondent Billy Jo Lara is an enrolled member of the

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in north-centralNorth Dakota. He married a member of a different tribe,the Spirit Lake Tribe, and lived with his wife and childrenon the Spirit Lake Reservation, also located in North Da-kota. See Brief for Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe of North Da-kota et al. as Amici Curiae 4-5. After several incidents ofserious misconduct, the Spirit Lake Tribe issued an orderexcluding him from the reservation. Lara ignored theorder; federal officers stopped him; and he struck one of thearresting officers. 324 F. 3d 635, 636 (CA8 2003) (en banc).

The Spirit Lake Tribe subsequently prosecuted Lara inthe Spirit Lake Tribal Court for "violence to a policeman."Ibid. Lara pleaded guilty and, in respect to that crime,served 90 days in jail. See ibid.; Tr. of Oral Arg. 28.

gress of American Indians by Carter G. Phillips, Virginia A Seitz, andRiyaz A. Kanji.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for Lewis County,Idaho, et al. by Tom D. Tobin and Kimron Torgerson; for the CitizensEqual Rights Foundation by Randy V Thompson; and for the NationalAssociation of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Virginia G. Villa and JoshuaL. Dratel.

Jon Metropoulos filed a brief of amici curiae for Thomas Lee Morriset al.

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


After Lara's tribal conviction, the Federal Governmentcharged Lara in the Federal District Court for the Districtof North Dakota with the federal crime of assaulting a fed-eral officer. 324 F. 3d, at 636; 18 U. S. C. § 111(a)(1). Keyelements of this federal crime mirror elements of the tribalcrime of "violence to a policeman." See Brief for UnitedStates 7. And this similarity between the two crimes wouldordinarily have brought Lara within the protective reachof the Double Jeopardy Clause. U. S. Const., Amdt. 5 (theGovernment may not "subject" any person "for the same of-fence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"); 324 F. 3d,at 636. But the Government, responding to Lara's claimof double jeopardy, pointed out that the Double JeopardyClause does not bar successive prosecutions brought by sepa-rate sovereigns, and it argued that this "dual sovereignty"doctrine determined the outcome here. See Heath v. Ala-bama, 474 U. S. 82, 88 (1985) (the Double Jeopardy Clausereflects the "common-law conception of crime as an offenseagainst the sovereignty of the government"; when "a defend-ant in a single act violates the 'peace and dignity' of twosovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committedtwo distinct 'offences' ").

The Government noted that this Court has held that anIndian tribe acts as a separate sovereign when it prosecutesits own members. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U. S. 313,318, 322-323 (1978) (a tribe's "sovereign power to punishtribal offenders," while subject to congressional "defea-sance," remains among those "'inherent powers of a limitedsovereignty which has never been extinguished"' (empha-sis added and deleted)). The Government recognized, ofcourse, that Lara is not one of the Spirit Lake Tribe's ownmembers; it also recognized that, in Duro v. Reina, supra,this Court had held that a tribe no longer possessed inherentor sovereign authority to prosecute a "nonmember Indian."Id., at 682. But it pointed out that, soon after this Courtdecided Duro, Congress enacted new legislation specifically



authorizing a tribe to prosecute Indian members of a differ-ent tribe. See Act of Nov. 5, 1990, §§ 8077(b)-(d), 104 Stat.1892-1893 (temporary legislation until September 30, 1991);Act of Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 646 (permanent legislation).That new statute, in permitting a tribe to bring certaintribal prosecutions against nonmember Indians, does notpurport to delegate the Federal Government's own federalpower. Rather, it enlarges the tribes' own "'powers of self-government"' to include "the inherent power of Indiantribes, hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise criminaljurisdiction over all Indians," including nonmembers. 25U. S. C. § 1301(2) (emphasis added).

In the Government's view, given this statute, the Tribe,in prosecuting Lara, had exercised its own inherent tribalauthority, not delegated federal authority; hence the "dualsovereignty" doctrine applies, Heath, supra, at 88; and sincethe two prosecutions were brought by two different sover-eigns, the second, federal, prosecution does not violate theDouble Jeopardy Clause.

The Federal Magistrate Judge accepted the Government'sargument and rejected Lara's double jeopardy claim. 324F. 3d, at 636-637. An Eighth Circuit panel agreed with theMagistrate Judge. 294 F. 3d 1004 (2002). But the en bancCourt of Appeals, by a vote of 7 to 4, reached a differentconclusion. 324 F. 3d 635 (2003). It held the Tribal Court,in prosecuting Lara, was exercising a federal prosecutorialpower; hence the "dual sovereignty" doctrine does not apply;and the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the second prosecution.Id., at 640. The four dissenting judges, agreeing with theFederal Government, concluded that the Tribal Court hadexercised inherent tribal power in prosecuting Lara; hencethe "dual sovereignty" doctrine applies and allows the sec-ond, federal, prosecution. Id., at 641 (opinion of M. Arnold,J.).

Because the Eighth Circuit and Ninth Circuit havereached different conclusions about the new statute, we

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


granted certiorari. Cf. United States v. Enas, 255 F. 3d 662(CA9 2001) (en banc), cert. denied, 534 U. S. 1115 (2002). Wenow reverse the Eighth Circuit.

II

We assume, as do the parties, that Lara's double jeopardyclaim turns on the answer to the "dual sovereignty" ques-tion. What is "the source of [the] power to punish" non-member Indian offenders, "inherent tribal sovereignty" ordelegated federal authority? Wheeler, supra, at 322 (em-phasis added).

We also believe that Congress intended the former answer.The statute says that it "recognize[s] and affirm[s]" in eachtribe the "inherent" tribal power (not delegated federalpower) to prosecute nonmember Indians for misdemeanors.See supra, at 198; Appendix, infra (emphasis added). Andthe statute's legislative history confirms that such was Con-gress' intent. See, e. g., H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 102-261,pp. 3-4 (1991) ("The Committee of the Conference notes that... this legislation is not a delegation of this jurisdiction buta clarification of the status of tribes as domestic dependentnations"); accord, H. R. Rep. No. 102-61, p. 7 (1991); see alsoS. Rep. No. 102-168, p. 4 (1991) ("recogniz[ing] and reaf-firm[ing] the inherent authority of tribal governments to ex-ercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians"); 137 Cong. Rec.9446 (1991) (remarks of Sen. Inouye) (the "premise [of thelegislation] is that the Congress affirms the inherent jurisdic-tion of tribal governments over nonmember Indians" (em-phasis added)); id., at 10712-10714 (remarks of Rep. Miller,House manager of the bill) (the statute "is not a delegationof authority but an affirmation that tribes retain all rightsnot expressly taken away" and the bill "recognizes an inher-ent tribal right which always existed"); id., at 10713 (re-marks of Rep. Richardson, a sponsor of the amendment) (thelegislation "reaffirms" tribes' power).



Thus the statute seeks to adjust the tribes' status. It re-laxes the restrictions, recognized in Duro, that the politicalbranches had imposed on the tribes' exercise of inherentprosecutorial power. The question before us is whether theConstitution authorizes Congress to do so. Several consid-erations lead us to the conclusion that Congress does possessthe constitutional power to lift the restrictions on the tribes'criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians as the statuteseeks to do.

First, the Constitution grants Congress broad generalpowers to legislate in respect to Indian tribes, powers thatwe have consistently described as "plenary and exclusive."E. g., Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of Yak-ima Nation, 439 U. S. 463, 470-471 (1979); Negonsott v. Sam-uels, 507 U. S. 99, 103 (1993); see Wheeler, 435 U. S., at 323;see also W. Canby, American Indian Law 2 (3d ed. 1998)(hereinafter Canby) ("[T]he independence of the tribes issubject to exceptionally great powers of Congress to regu-late and modify the status of the tribes").

This Court has traditionally identified the Indian Com-merce Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and the TreatyClause, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, as sources of that power. E.g.,Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 552 (1974); McClanahanv. Arizona Tax Comm'n, 411 U. S. 164, 172, n. 7 (1973); seealso Canby 11-12; F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal IndianLaw 209-210 (1982 ed.) (hereinafter Cohen) (also mentioning,inter alia, the Property Clause). The "central function ofthe Indian Commerce Clause," we have said, "is to provideCongress with plenary power to legislate in the field of In-dian affairs." Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490U. S. 163, 192 (1989); see also, e. g., Ramah Navajo SchoolBd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of N. M., 458 U. S. 832, 837(1982) ("broad power" under the Indian Commerce Clause);White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U. S. 136, 142(1980) (same, and citing Wheeler, supra, at 322-323).

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


The treaty power does not literally authorize Congress toact legislatively, for it is an Article II power authorizing thePresident, not Congress, "to make Treaties." U. S. Const.,Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. But, as Justice Holmes pointed out, treat-ies made pursuant to that power can authorize Congress todeal with "matters" with which otherwise "Congress couldnot deal." Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 433 (1920);see also L. Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the U. S. Constitu-tion 72 (2d ed. 1996). And for much of the Nation's history,treaties, and legislation made pursuant to those treaties, gov-erned relations between the Federal Government and theIndian tribes. See, e. g., Cohen 109-111; F. Prucha, Ameri-can Indian Policy in the Formative Years 44-49 (1962).

We recognize that in 1871 Congress ended the practice ofentering into treaties with the Indian tribes. 25 U. S. C. § 71(stating that tribes are not entities "with whom the UnitedStates may contract by treaty"). But the statute saved ex-isting treaties from being "invalidated or impaired," ibid.,and this Court has explicitly stated that the statute "in noway affected Congress' plenary powers to legislate on prob-lems of Indians," Antoine v. Washington, 420 U. S. 194, 203(1975) (emphasis deleted).

Moreover, "at least during the first century of America'snational existence . . . Indian affairs were more an aspectof military and foreign policy than a subject of domestic ormunicipal law." Cohen 208 (footnotes omitted). Insofar asthat is so, Congress' legislative authority would rest in part,not upon "affirmative grants of the Constitution," but uponthe Constitution's adoption of preconstitutional powers nec-essarily inherent in any Federal Government, namely, pow-ers that this Court has described as "necessary concomitantsof nationality." United States v. Curtiss-Wright ExportCorp., 299 U. S. 304, 315-322 (1936); Henkin, supra, at 14-22,63-72; cf. 2 J. Continental Cong. 174-175 (1775) (W. Ford ed.1905) (creating departments of Indian affairs, appointing In-dian commissioners, and noting the great importance of "se-



curing and preserving the friendship of the Indian Nations");Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 557 (1832) ("The treatiesand laws of the United States contemplate.. . that all inter-course with [Indians] shall be carried on exclusively by thegovernment of the union").

Second, Congress, with this Court's approval, has inter-preted the Constitution's "plenary" grants of power as au-thorizing it to enact legislation that both restricts and, inturn, relaxes those restrictions on tribal sovereign authority.From the Nation's beginning Congress' need for such legisla-tive power would have seemed obvious. After all, the Gov-ernment's Indian policies, applicable to numerous tribes withdiverse cultures, affecting billions of acres of land, of neces-sity would fluctuate dramatically as the needs of the Nationand those of the tribes changed over time. See, e. g., Cohen48. And Congress has in fact authorized at different timesvery different Indian policies (some with beneficial resultsbut many with tragic consequences). Congressional policy,for example, initially favored "Indian removal," then "assimi-lation" and the breakup of tribal lands, then protection of thetribal land base (interrupted by a movement toward greaterstate involvement and "termination" of recognized tribes);and it now seeks greater tribal autonomy within the frame-work of a "government-to-government relationship" withfederal agencies. 59 Fed. Reg. 22951 (1994); see also 19Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc. 98 (1983) (President Reagan re-affirming the rejection of termination as a policy and an-nouncing the goal of decreasing tribal dependence on theFederal Government); see 25 U. S. C. § 450a(b) (congressionalcommitment to "the development of strong and stable tribalgovernments"). See generally Cohen 78-202 (describingthis history); Canby 13-32 (same).

Such major policy changes inevitably involve majorchanges in the metes and bounds of tribal sovereignty. The1871 statute, for example, changed the status of an Indiantribe from a "powe[r] .. .capable of making treaties" to a

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


"power with whom the United States may [not] contractby treaty." Compare Worcester, supra, at 559, with 25U. S. C. § 71.

One can readily find examples in congressional decisions torecognize, or to terminate, the existence of individual tribes.See United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 419 (1866) ("If by[the political branches] those Indians are recognized as atribe, this court must do the same"); Menominee Tribe v.United States, 391 U. S. 404 (1968) (examining the rights ofMenominee Indians following the termination of their Tribe).Indeed, Congress has restored previously extinguishedtribal status-by re-recognizing a Tribe whose tribal exist-ence it previously had terminated. 25 U. S. C. §H 903-903f(restoring the Menominee Tribe); cf. United States v. Long,324 F. 3d 475 (CA7) (upholding against double jeopardy chal-lenge successive prosecutions by the restored MenomineeTribe and the Federal Government), cert. denied, 540 U. S.822 (2003). Congress has advanced policies of integrationby conferring United States citizenship upon all Indians. 8U. S. C. § 1401(b). Congress has also granted tribes greaterautonomy in their inherent law enforcement authority (in re-spect to tribal members) by increasing the maximum crimi-nal penalties tribal courts may impose. § 4217, 100 Stat.3207-146, codified at 25 U. S. C. § 1302(7) (raising the maxi-mum from "a term of six months and a fine of $500" to"a term of one year and a fine of $5,000").

Third, Congress' statutory goal-to modify the degree ofautonomy enjoyed by a dependent sovereign that is not aState-is not an unusual legislative objective. The politicalbranches, drawing upon analogous constitutional authority,have made adjustments to the autonomous status of othersuch dependent entities-sometimes making far more radicaladjustments than those at issue here. See, e. g., Hawaii-Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197, 209-211 (1903) (describingannexation of Hawaii by joint resolution of Congress and themaintenance of a "Republic of Hawaii" until formal incorpo-



ration by Congress); Northern Mariana Islands-note fol-lowing 48 U. S. C. § 1801 ("in accordance with the [UnitedNations] trusteeship agreement . . . [establishing] a self-governing commonwealth . . . in political union with andunder the sovereignty of the United States"); the Philip-pines-22 U. S. C. § 1394 (congressional authorization for thePresident to "withdraw and surrender all right of... sover-eignty" and to "recognize the independence of the PhilippineIslands as a separate and self-governing nation"); Presiden-tial Proclamation No. '2695, 60 Stat. 1352 (so proclaiming);Puerto Rico-Act of July 3, 1950, 64 Stat. 319 ("[T]his Act isnow adopted in the nature of a compact so that people ofPuerto Rico may organize a government pursuant to a con-stitution of their own adoption"); P. R. Const., Art. I, § 1("Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico"); see also Cor-dova & Simonpietri Ins. Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhat-tan Bank N. A., 649 F. 2d 36, 39-41 (CA1 1981) (describingvarious adjustments to Puerto Rican autonomy through con-gressional legislation since 1898).

Fourth, Lara points to no explicit language in the Consti-tution suggesting a limitation on Congress' institutional au-thority to relax restrictions on tribal sovereignty previouslyimposed by the political branches. But cf. Part III, infra.

Fifth, the change at issue here is a limited one. It con-cerns a power similar in some respects to the power to prose-cute a tribe's own members-a power that this Court hascalled "inherent." Wheeler, 435 U. S., at 322-323. In largepart it concerns a tribe's authority to control events thatoccur upon the tribe's own land. See United States v. Ma-zurie, 419 U. S. 544, 557 (1975) ("Indian tribes are uniqueaggregations possessing attributes of sovereignty over boththeir members and their territory" (emphasis added)); seealso, e. g., S. Rep. No. 102-168, at 21 (remarks of P. Hugen).And the tribes' possession of this additional criminal juris-diction is consistent with our traditional understanding ofthe tribes' status as "domestic dependent nations." Chero-

.Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


kee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 17 (1831); see also id., at 16(describing tribe as "a distinct political society, separatedfrom others, capable of managing its own affairs and govern-ing itself"). Consequently, we are not now faced with aquestion dealing with potential constitutional limits on con-gressional efforts to legislate far more radical changes intribal status. In particular, this case involves no interfer-ence with the power or authority of any State. Nor do wenow consider the question whether the Constitution's DueProcess or Equal Protection Clauses prohibit tribes fromprosecuting a nonmember citizen of the United States. SeePart III, infra.

Sixth, our conclusion that Congress has the power to relaxthe restrictions imposed by the political branches on thetribes' inherent prosecutorial authority is consistent withour earlier cases. True, the Court held in those cases thatthe power to prosecute nonmembers was an aspect of thetribes' external relations and hence part of the tribal sover-eignty that was divested by treaties and by Congress.Wheeler, supra, at 326; Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435U. S. 191, 209-210 (1978); Duro, 495 U. S., at 686. But theseholdings reflect the Court's view of the tribes' retained sov-ereign status as of the time the Court made them. Theydid not set forth constitutional limits that prohibit Congressfrom changing the relevant legal circumstances, i. e., fromtaking actions that modify or adjust the tribes' status.

To the contrary, Oliphant and Duro make clear that theConstitution does not dictate the metes and bounds of tribalautonomy, nor do they suggest that the Court shouldsecond-guess the political branches' own determinations. InOliphant, the Court rested its conclusion about inherenttribal authority to prosecute tribe members in large partupon "the commonly shared presumption of Congress, theExecutive Branch, and lower federal courts," a presump-tion which, "[w]hile not conclusive[,] carries considerableweight." 435 U. S., at 206. The Court pointed out that



"'Indian law' draws principally upon the treaties drawn andexecuted by the Executive Branch and legislation passedby Congress." Ibid. (emphasis added). It added that those"instruments... form the backdrop for the intricate web ofjudicially made Indian law." Ibid. (emphasis added).

Similarly, in Duro, the Court drew upon a host of differentsources in order to reach its conclusion that a tribe does notpossess the inherent power to prosecute a nonmember. TheCourt referred to historic practices, the views of experts, theexperience of forerunners of modern tribal courts, and thepublished opinions of the Solicitor of the Department of theInterior. 495 U. S., at 689-692. See also, e. g., Nevada v.Hicks, 533 U. S. 353, 361, n. 4 (2001) ("Our holding in Worces-ter must be considered in light of... the 1828 treaty" (alter-ations and internal quotation marks omitted)); South Dakotav. Bourland, 508 U. S. 679, 695 (1993) ("Having concludedthat Congress clearly abrogated the Tribe's pre-existing reg-ulatory control over non-Indian hunting and fishing, we findno evidence in the relevant treaties or statutes that Congressintended to allow the Tribes to assert regulatory jurisdictionover these lands pursuant to inherent sovereignty" (empha-sis added)); National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. CrowTribe, 471 U. S. 845, 855-856 (1985) ("[Tlhe existence andextent of a tribal court's jurisdiction will require [inter alia]a detailed study of relevant statutes, Executive Branch pol-icy as embodied in treaties and elsewhere, and administra-tive or judicial decisions"); United States v. Kagama, 118U. S. 375, 382-383 (1886) (characterizing Ex parte Crow Dog,109 U. S. 556, 570 (1883), as resting on extant treaties andstatutes and recognizing congressional overruling of CrowDog).

Thus, the Court in these cases based its descriptions ofinherent tribal authority upon the sources as they existedat the time the Court issued its decisions. Congressionallegislation constituted one such important source. And thatsource was subject to change. Indeed Duro itself antici-

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


pated change by inviting interested parties to "address theproblem [to] Congress." 495 U. S., at 698.

We concede that Duro, like several other cases, referredonly to the need to obtain a congressional statute that "dele-gated" power to the tribes. See id., at 686 (emphasis added);Bourland, supra, at 695, n. 15; Montana v. United States,450 U. S. 544, 564 (1981); Mazurie, 419 U. S., at 556-557.But in so stating, Duro (like the other cases) simply did notconsider whether a statute, like the present one, could consti-tutionally achieve the same end by removing restrictions onthe tribes' inherent authority. Consequently we do not readany of these cases as holding that the Constitution forbidsCongress to change "judicially made" federal Indian lawthrough this kind of legislation. Oliphant, supra, at 206;cf. County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y, 470U. S. 226, 233-237 (1985) (recognizing the "federal commonlaw" component of Indian rights, which "common law" fed-eral courts develop as "a 'necessary expedient' when Con-gress has not 'spoken to a particular issue"' (quoting Mil-waukee v. Illinois, 451 U. S. 304, 313-315 (1981))); id., at 313("[F]ederal common law is 'subject to the paramount author-ity of Congress"' (quoting New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S.336, 348 (1931))).

Wheeler, Oliphant, and Duro, then, are not determinativebecause Congress has enacted a new statute, relaxing re-strictions on the bounds of the inherent tribal authority thatthe United States recognizes. And that fact makes all thedifference.

III

Lara makes several additional arguments. First, hepoints out that the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat.77, lacks certain constitutional protections for criminal de-fendants, in particular the right of an indigent defendant tocounsel. See 25 U. S. C. § 1302. And he argues that theDue Process Clause forbids Congress to permit a tribe toprosecute a nonmember Indian citizen of the United States



in a forum that lacks this protection. See Argersinger v.Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972) (Constitution guarantees indi-gents counsel where imprisonment possible).

Lara's due process argument, however, suffers from a criti-cal structural defect. To explain the defect, we contrast thisargument with Lara's "lack of constitutional power" argu-ment discussed in Part II, supra. Insofar as that "constitu-tional power" argument might help Lara win his doublejeopardy claim, it must proceed in four steps:

Step One: Congress does not possess the constitutionalpower to enact a statute that modifies tribal power by "rec-ogniz[ing] and affirm[ing]" the tribes' "inherent" authorityto prosecute nonmember Indians. 25 U. S. C. § 1301(2).

Step Two: Consequently, the word "inherent" in the stat-ute's phrase "inherent power" is void.

Step Three: The word "inherent" is severable from the restof the statute (as are related words). The remainder of thestatute is valid without those words, but it then delegatesfederal power to the tribe to conduct the prosecution.

Step Four: Consequently, the Tribe's prosecution of Larawas federal. The current, second, prosecution is also fed-eral. Hence Lara wins his Double Jeopardy Clause claim,the subject of the present proceeding.

Although the Eighth Circuit accepted this argument, 324F. 3d, at 640, we reject Step One of the argument, PartII, supra. That rejection, without more, invalidates theargument.

Lara's due process argument, however, is significantly dif-ferent. That argument (if valid) would show that anyprosecution of a nonmember Indian under the statute is in-valid; so Lara's tribal prosecution would be invalid, too.Showing Lara's tribal prosecution was invalid, however, doesnot show that the source of that tribal prosecution was fed-eral power (showing that a state prosecution violated theDue Process Clause does not make that prosecution federal).

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


But without that "federal power" showing, Lara cannot winhis double jeopardy claim here. Hence, we need not, and weshall not, consider the merits of Lara's due process claim.Other defendants in tribal proceedings remain free to raisethat claim should they wish to do so. See 25 U. S. C. § 1303(vesting district courts with jurisdiction over habeas writsfrom tribal courts).

Second, Lara argues that Congress' use of the words "allIndians," in the statutory phrase "inherent power.., to ex-ercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians," violates theEqual Protection Clause. He says that insofar as the wordsinclude nonmember Indians within the statute's scope (whileexcluding all non-Indians) the statute is race based and with-out justification. Like the due process argument, however,this equal protection argument is simply beside the point,therefore we do not address it. At best for Lara, the argu-ment (if valid) would show, not that Lara's first convictionwas federal, but that it was constitutionally defective. Andthat showing cannot help Lara win his double jeopardyclaim.

Third, Lara points out that the Duro Court found the ab-sence of certain constitutional safeguards, for example, theguarantee of an indigent's right to counsel, as an importantreason for concluding that tribes lacked the "inherentpower" to try a "group of citizens" (namely, nonmember Indi-ans) who were not "include[d]" in those "political bodies."495 U. S., at 693-694. In fact, Duro says the following: "Wehesitate to adopt a view of tribal sovereignty that wouldsingle out another group of citizens, nonmember Indians, fortrial by political bodies that do not include them." Id., at693. But this argument simply repeats the due process andequal protection arguments rejected above in a somewhatdifferent form. Since precisely the same problem wouldexist were we to treat the congressional statute as delegat-ing federal power, this argument helps Lara no more thanthe others.


STEVENS, J., concurring

IV

For these reasons, we hold, with the reservations set forthin Part III, supra, that the Constitution authorizes Congressto permit tribes, as an exercise of their inherent tribal au-thority, to prosecute nonmember Indians. We hold thatCongress exercised that authority in writing this statute.That being so, the Spirit Lake Tribe's prosecution of Laradid not amount to an exercise of federal power, and the Tribeacted in its capacity of a separate sovereign. Consequently,the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the FederalGovernment from proceeding with the present prosecutionfor a discrete federal offense. Heath, 474 U. S., at 88.

The contrary judgment of the Eighth Circuit is

Reversed.

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT

Title 25 U. S. C. § 1301(2), as amended by Act of Oct. 28,1991, 105 Stat. 646, provides:

"'[P]owers of self-government' means and includes all gov-ernmental powers possessed by an Indian tribe, executive,legislative, and judicial, and all offices, bodies, and tribunalsby and through which they are executed, including courts ofIndian offenses; and means the inherent power of Indiantribes, hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise criminaljurisdiction over all Indians."

JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring.While I join the Court's opinion without reservation, the

additional writing by my colleagues prompts this comment.The inherent sovereignty of the Indian tribes has a historicalbasis that merits special mention. They governed territoryon this continent long before Columbus arrived. In con-trast, most of the States were never actually independentsovereigns, and those that were enjoyed that independent

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)

KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment

status for only a few years. Given the fact that Congresscan authorize the States to exercise-as their own-inherentpowers that the Constitution has otherwise placed off limits,see, e. g., Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408, 437-438 (1946), I find nothing exceptional in the conclusion thatit can also relax restrictions on an ancient inherent tribalpower.

JUSTICE KENNEDY, concurring in the judgment.

The amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968(ICRA) enacted after the Court's decision in Duro v. Reina,495 U. S. 676 (1990), demonstrates Congress' clear intentionto restore to the tribes an inherent sovereign power to pros-ecute nonmember Indians. Congress was careful to rely onthe theory of inherent sovereignty, and not on a delegation.JUSTICE SOUTER'S position that it was a delegation nonethe-less, post, at 231 (dissenting opinion), is by no means withoutsupport, but I would take Congress at its word. Under thatview, the first prosecution of Lara was not a delegated fed-eral prosecution, and his double jeopardy argument mustfail. That is all we need say to resolve this case.

The Court's analysis goes beyond this narrower rationaleand culminates in a surprising holding: "For these reasons,we hold . . . that the Constitution authorizes Congress topermit tribes, as an exercise of their inherent tribal author-ity, to prosecute nonmember Indians." Ante, at 210. TheCourt's holding is on a point of major significance to our un-derstanding and interpretation of the Constitution; and, inmy respectful view, it is most doubtful.

Were we called upon to decide whether Congress has thispower, it would be a difficult question. Our decision inUnited States v. Wheeler, 435 U. S. 313 (1978), which theCourt cites today but discusses very little, is replete withreferences to the inherent authority of the tribe over its ownmembers. As I read that case, it is the historic possessionof inherent power over "the relations among members of a



tribe" that is the whole justification for the limited tribalsovereignty the Court there recognized. Id., at 326. It isa most troubling proposition to say that Congress can relaxthe restrictions on inherent tribal sovereignty in a way thatextends that sovereignty beyond those historical limits.Cf., e. g., Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U. S. 438, 445-446(1997) ("In the main ... 'the inherent sovereign powers ofan Indian tribe'-those powers a tribe enjoys apart from ex-press provision by treaty or statute-'do not extend to theactivities of nonmembers of the tribe"' (quoting Montana v.United States, 450 U. S. 544, 565 (1981))). To conclude thata tribe's inherent sovereignty allows it to exercise jurisdic-tion over a nonmember in a criminal case is to enlarge the"unique and limited character" of the inherent sovereigntythat Wheeler recognized. 435 U. S., at 323.

Lara, after all, is a citizen of the United States. To holdthat Congress can subject him, within our domestic borders,to a sovereignty outside the basic structure of the Constitu-tion is a serious step. The Constitution is based on a theoryof original, and continuing, consent of the governed. Theirconsent depends on the understanding that the Constitutionhas established the federal structure, which grants the citi-zen the protection of two governments, the Nation and theState. Each sovereign must respect the proper sphere ofthe other, for the citizen has rights and duties as to both.See U S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 838-839 (1995) (KENNEDY, J., concurring). Here, contrary to thisdesign, the National Government seeks to subject a citizento the criminal jurisdiction of a third entity to be tried forconduct occurring wholly within the territorial borders ofthe Nation and one of the States. This is unprecedented.There is a historical exception for Indian tribes, but only tothe limited extent that a member of a tribe consents to besubjected to the jurisdiction of his own tribe. See Duro,supra, at 693. The majority today reaches beyond that lim-ited exception.

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


The Court resolves, or perhaps avoids, the basic questionof the power of the Government to yield authority inside thedomestic borders over citizens to a third sovereign by usingthe euphemistic formulation that in amending the ICRACongress merely relaxed restrictions on the tribes. Seeante, at 196, 200, 202, 205, and 207. There is no language inthe statute, or the legislative history, that justifies this un-usual phrase, cf. 25 U. S. C. § 1301(2) (referring to "the inher-ent power of Indian tribes, hereby recognized and affirmed,to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians"); and, inmy respectful view, it obscures what is actually at stake inthis case. The terms of the statute are best understood asa grant or cession from Congress to the tribes, and it shouldnot be doubted that what Congress has attempted to do issubject American citizens to the authority of an extraconsti-tutional sovereign to which they had not previously beensubject. The relaxing-restrictions formulation is furtherbelied by the involvement of the United States in all aspectsof the tribal prosecution of a nonmember Indian. Federallaw defines the separate tribes, § 1301, the broader class of"Indians," the maximum penalty which the tribes may im-pose for crimes, and the procedural protections to which de-fendants are entitled in the trials, § 1302. This does notindicate the sort of detachment from the exercise of pros-ecutorial authority implicit in the description of Congress'Act as having relaxed restrictions.

In addition to trying to evade the important structuralquestion by relying on the verbal formula of relaxation, theCourt also tries to bolster its position by noting that dueprocess and equal protection claims are still reserved.Ante, at 210. That is true, but it ignores the elementaryprinciple that the constitutional structure was in place beforethe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were adopted. Todemean the constitutional structure and the consent uponwhich it rests by implying they are wholly dependent fortheir vindication on the Due Process and Equal Protection


THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

Clauses is a further, unreasoned holding of serious import.The political freedom guaranteed to citizens by the federalstructure is a liberty both distinct from and every bit asimportant as those freedoms guaranteed by the Bill ofRights. Cf. Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U. S. 417, 449-453 (1998) (KENNEDY, J., concurring). The individual citizenhas an enforceable right to those structural guarantees ofliberty, a right which the majority ignores. Perhaps theCourt's holding could be justified by an argument that byenrolling in one tribe Lara consented to the criminal jurisdic-tion of other tribes, but the Court does not mention thepoint. And, in all events, we should be cautious aboutadopting that fiction.

The present case, however, does not require us to addressthese difficult questions of constitutional dimension. Con-gress made it clear that its intent was to recognize and affirmtribal authority to try Indian nonmembers as inherent intribal status. The proper occasion to test the legitimacy ofthe Tribe's authority, that is, whether Congress had thepower to do what it sought to do, was in the first, tribalproceeding. There, however, Lara made no objection to theTribe's authority to try him. In the second, federal proceed-ing, because the express rationale for the Tribe's authorityto try Lara-whether legitimate or not-was inherent sover-eignty, not delegated federal power, there can be no doublejeopardy violation. Cf. Grafton v. United States, 206 U. S.333, 345 (1907) ("[B]efore a person can be said to have beenput in jeopardy of life or limb the court in which he wasacquitted or convicted must have had jurisdiction to try himfor the offense charged"). For that reason, I concur in thejudgment.

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the judgment.

As this case should make clear, the time has come to re-examine the premises and logic of our tribal sovereigntycases. It seems to me that much of the confusion reflected

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


in our precedent arises from two largely incompatible anddoubtful assumptions. First, Congress (rather than someother part of the Federal Government) can regulate virtuallyevery aspect of the tribes without rendering tribal sover-eignty a nullity. See, e. g., United States v. Wheeler, 435U. S. 313, 319 (1978). Second, the Indian tribes retain inher-ent sovereignty to enforce their criminal laws against theirown members. See, e. g., id., at 326. These assumptions,which I must accept as the case comes to us, dictate theoutcome in this case, and I therefore concur in the judgment.

I write separately principally because the Court fails toconfront these tensions, a result that flows from the Court'sinadequate constitutional analysis. I cannot agree with theCourt, for instance, that the Constitution grants to Congressplenary power to calibrate the "metes and bounds of tri-bal sovereignty." Ante, at 202; see also ante, at 210 (hold-ing that "the Constitution authorizes Congress" to regulatetribal sovereignty). Unlike the Court, ante, at 200-201,I cannot locate such congressional authority in the TreatyClause, U. S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 2, or the Indian Com-merce Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Additionally, I would ascribemuch more significance to legislation such as the Act of Mar.3, 1871, Rev. Stat. § 2079, 16 Stat. 566, codified at 25 U. S. C.§ 71, that purports to terminate the practice of dealing withIndian tribes by treaty. The making of treaties, after all, isthe one mechanism that the Constitution clearly provides forthe Federal Government to interact with sovereigns otherthan the States. Yet, if I accept that Congress does havethis authority, I believe that the result in Wheeler is ques-tionable. In my view, the tribes either are or are not sepa-rate sovereigns, and our federal Indian law cases untenablyhold both positions simultaneously.

I

In response to the Court's decision in Duro v. Reina, 495U. S. 676 (1990) (holding that the tribes lack inherent author-



ity to prosecute nonmember Indians), Congress amendedthe Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (ICRA). Specifically,through this "Duro fix," Congress amended ICRA's defini-tion of the tribes' "powers of self-government" to "recog-niz[e] and affir[m]" the existence of "inherent power ... toexercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians." 25 U. S. C.§ 1301(2). There is quite simply no way to interpret a recog-nition and affirmation of inherent power as a delegation offederal power, as the Court explains. Ante, at 199. Dele-gated power is the very antithesis of inherent power.

But even if the statute were less clear, I would not inter-pret it as a delegation of federal power. The power to bringfederal prosecutions, which is part of the putative delegatedpower, is manifestly and quintessentially executive power.Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 691 (1988); id., at 705(SCALIA, J., dissenting). Congress cannot transfer federalexecutive power to individuals who are beyond "meaningfulPresidential control." Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898,922-923 (1997). And this means that, at a minimum, thePresident must have some measure of "the power to appointand remove" those exercising that power. Id., at 922; seealso Morrison, supra, at 706-715 (SCALIA, J., dissenting).

It does not appear that the President has any control overtribal officials, let alone a substantial measure of the appoint-ment and removal power. Cf. Brief for National Congressof American Indians as Amicus Curiae 27-29. Thus, atleast until we are prepared to recognize absolutely independ-ent agencies entirely outside of the Executive Branch withthe power to bind the Executive Branch (for a tribal prosecu-tion would then bar a subsequent federal prosecution), thetribes cannot be analogized to administrative agencies, as thedissent suggests, post, at 227 (opinion of SOUTER, J.). Thatis, reading the "Duro fix" as a delegation of federal power(without also divining some adequate method of Presidentialcontrol) would create grave constitutional difficulties. Cf.INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 299-300 (2001); Solid Waste

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers,531 U. S. 159, 173 (2001). Accordingly, the Court has onlytwo options: Either the "Duro fix" changed the result inDuro or it did nothing at all.'

II

In Wheeler, 435 U. S., at 322-323, the Court explained that,prior to colonization, "the tribes were self-governing sover-eign political communities." The Court acknowledged, how-ever, that, after "[t]heir incorporation within the territory ofthe United States," the tribes could exercise their inherentsovereignty only as consistent with federal policy embodiedin treaties, statutes, and Executive Orders. Id., at 323; seealso id., at 327-328. Examining these sources for potentialconflict, the Court concluded that the tribes retained theability to exercise their inherent sovereignty to punish theirown members. Id., at 323-330.

Although Wheeler seems to be a sensible example of fed-eral common lawmaking, I am not convinced that it was cor-rectly decided. To be sure, it makes sense to conceptualize

II am sympathetic to JUSTICE KENNEDY'S position that we need notresolve the question presented. Ante, at 211 (opinion concurring in judg-ment). If Congress has power to restore tribal authority to prosecutenonmember Indians, respondent's tribal prosecution was the legitimateexercise of a separate sovereign. As such, under the dual sovereigntydoctrine, it does not bar his subsequent federal prosecution. On the otherhand, if the amendment to ICRA had no effect (the only other possibility),jeopardy did not attach in the tribal prosecution. See, e. g., Serfass v.United States, 420 U. S. 377, 391 (1975); Grafton v. United States, 206 U. S.333, 345 (1907) (noting "that before a person can be said to have been putin jeopardy of life or limb the court in which he was acquitted or convictedmust have had jurisdiction to try him for the offense charged"); UnitedStates v. Phelps, 168 F. 3d 1048, 1053-1054 (CA8 1999) (holding tribal courtprosecution without jurisdiction did not bar subsequent federal prosecu-tion). Jeopardy could have attached in the tribal prosecution for federalpurposes only if the Federal Government had authorized the prosecution.But Congress did not authorize tribal prosecutions, and nothing suggeststhat the Executive Branch prompted respondent's tribal prosecution.



the tribes as sovereigns that, due to their unique situation,cannot exercise the full measure of their sovereign powers.Wheeler, at times, seems to analyze the problem in just thisway. See, e. g., id., at 323-326; id., at 323 (relying on Oli-phant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U. S. 191 (1978), discussedinfra).

But I do not see how this is consistent with the apparently"undisputed fact that Congress has plenary authority to leg-islate for the Indian tribes in all matters, including theirform of government." 435 U. S., at 319. The sovereign is,by definition, the entity "in which independent and supremeauthority is vested." Black's Law Dictionary 1395 (6th ed.1990). It is quite arguably the essence of sovereignty notto exist merely at the whim of an external government.

Further, federal policy itself could be thought to be incon-sistent with this residual-sovereignty theory. In 1871, Con-gress enacted a statute that purported to prohibit enteringinto treaties with the "Indian nation[s] or tribe[s]." 16 Stat.566, codified at 25 U. S; C. § 71. Although this Act is consti-tutionally suspect (the Constitution vests in the Presidentboth the power to make treaties, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, and torecognize foreign governments, Art. II, § 3; see, e. g., UnitedStates v. Pink, 315 U. S. 203, 228-230 (1942)), it neverthelessreflects the view of the political branches that the tribes hadbecome a purely domestic matter.

To be sure, this does not quite suffice to demonstrate thatthe tribes had lost their sovereignty. After all, States re-tain sovereignty despite the fact that Congress can regulateStates qua States in certain limited circumstances. See,e. g., Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641 (1966); cf. NewYork v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 160-161 (1992); Garciav. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S.528 (1985). But the States (unlike the tribes) are part of aconstitutional framework that allocates sovereignty betweenthe State and Federal Governments and specifically grantsCongress authority to legislate with respect to them, see

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 5. And even so, we have explainedthat "the Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that con-fers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, notStates." New York, 505 U. S., at 166; id., at 162-166; seealso Printz, 521 U. S., at 910-915.

The tribes, by contrast, are not part of this constitutionalorder, and their sovereignty is not guaranteed by it. AsChief Justice Marshall explained:

"[T]he relation of the Indians to the United States ismarked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions which existno where else...."[Y]et it may well be doubted whether those tribeswhich reside within the acknowledged boundaries of theUnited States can, with strict accuracy, be denominatedforeign nations. They may, more correctly, perhaps, bedenominated domestic dependent nations." CherokeeNation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 16-17 (1831).

Chief Justice Marshall further described the tribes as "inde-pendent political communities, retaining their original natu-ral rights," and specifically noted that the tribes possessedthe power to "mak[e] treaties." Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet.515, 559 (1832). Although the tribes never fit comfortablywithin the category of foreign nations, the 1871 Act tends toshow that the political branches no longer considered thetribes to be anything like foreign nations. And it is at leastarguable that the United States no longer considered thetribes to be sovereigns. 2 Federal Indian policy is, to say theleast, schizophrenic. And this confusion continues to infusefederal Indian law and our cases.

2 Additionally, the very enactment of ICRA through normal legislation

conflicts with the notion that tribes possess inherent sovereignty. Title25 U. S. C. § 1302, for example, requires tribes "in exercising powers ofself-government" to accord individuals most of the protections in the Billof Rights. I doubt whether Congress could, through ordinary legislation,require States (let alone foreign nations) to use grand juries.



Nevertheless, if I accept Wheeler, I also must accept thatthe tribes do retain inherent sovereignty (at least to enforcetheir criminal laws against their own members) and thelogical consequences of this fact. In Heath v. Alabama, 474U. S. 82, 88 (1985), the Court elaborated the dual sover-eignty doctrine and explained that a single act that violatesthe "'peace and dignity' of two sovereigns by breaking thelaws of each" constitutes two separate offenses. This, ofcourse, is the reason that the Double Jeopardy Clause doesnot bar successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns.But whether an act violates the "peace and dignity" of asovereign depends not in the least on whether the perpetra-tor is a member (in the case of the tribes) or a citizen (in thecase of the States and the Nation) of the sovereign.

Heath also instructs, relying on Wheeler, that theseparate-sovereign inquiry "turns on whether the two enti-ties draw their authority to punish the offender from distinctsources of power." Heath, supra, at 88. But Wheelermakes clear that the tribes and the Federal Government dodraw their authority to punish from distinct sources and thatthey are separate sovereigns. Otherwise, the subsequentfederal prosecution in Wheeler would have violated the Dou-ble Jeopardy Clause.3 It follows from our case law that In-dian tribes possess inherent sovereignty to punish anyonewho violates their laws.

In Duro v. Reina, 495 U. S. 676 (1990), the Court held thatthe Indian tribes could no longer enforce their criminal lawsagainst nonmember Indians. Despite the obvious tension,Duro and Wheeler are not necessarily inconsistent. Al-though Wheeler and Heath, taken together, necessarily implythat the tribes retain inherent sovereignty to try anyonewho violates their criminal laws, Wheeler and Duro make

I1 acknowledge that Wheeler focused specifically on the tribes' authorityto try their own members. See 435 U. S., at 323-330. But, as I discussbelow, the distinction between the tribes' external and internal powers isnot constitutionally required.

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


clear that conflict with federal policy can operate to prohibitthe exercise of this sovereignty. Duro, then, is not a caseabout "inherent sovereignty" (a term that we have used tooimprecisely); rather, it is a case about whether a specific ex-ercise of tribal sovereignty conflicts with federal policy.

Indeed, the Court in Duro relied primarily on Oliphant v.Suquamish Tribe, 435 U. S. 191 (1978), which held that tribescould not enforce their criminal laws against non-Indians.In reaching that conclusion, the Court in Oliphant carefullyexamined the views of Congress and the Executive Branch.Id., at 197-206 (discussing treaties, statutes, and views of theExecutive Branch); id., at 199 (discussing Attorney Generalopinions, including 2 Op. Atty. Gen. 693 (1834) (concludingthat tribal exercise of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indianswas inconsistent with various treaties)). Duro at least re-hearsed the same analysis. 495 U. S., at 688-692. Thus, al-though Duro is sprinkled with references to various constitu-tional concerns, see, e. g., id., at 693-694, Duro, Oliphant,and Wheeler are classic federal-common-law decisions. Seealso County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y, 470U. S. 226, 233-236 (1985).

I acknowledge that our cases have distinguished between"tribal power [that] is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations" and tribal poweras it relates to the external world. Montana v. UnitedStates, 450 U. S. 544, 564 (1981); see also Nevada v. Hicks,533 U. S. 353, 358-359 (2001); South Dakota v. Bourland, 508U. S. 679, 695, n. 15 (1993); Duro, supra, at 685-686; Wheeler,435 U. S., at 322-325. This distinction makes perfect senseas a matter of federal common law: Purely "internal" mattersare by definition unlikely to implicate any federal policy.But, critically, our cases have never drawn this line as a con-stitutional matter. That is why we have analyzed extantfederal law (embodied in treaties, statutes, and ExecutiveOrders) before concluding that particular tribal assertions ofpower were incompatible with the position of the tribes.



See, e. g., National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe,471 U. S. 845, 853-854 (1985); Oliphant, supra, at 204 ("WhileCongress never expressly forbade Indian tribes to imposecriminal penalties on non-Indians, we now make express ourimplicit conclusion of nearly a century ago [referring to Inre Mayfield, 141 U. S. 107 (1891)] that Congress consistentlybelieved this to be the necessary result of its repeated legis-lative actions").4

As noted, in response to Duro, Congress amended ICRA.Specifically, Congress "recognized and affirmed" the exist-ence of "inherent power.., to exercise criminal jurisdictionover all Indians." 25 U. S. C. § 1301(2). President Bushsigned this legislation into law. See 27 Weekly Comp. ofPres. Doc. 1573-1574 (1991). Further, as this litigation dem-onstrates, it is the position of the Executive Branch that thetribes possess inherent authority to prosecute nonmemberIndians.

In my view, these authoritative pronouncements of the po-litical branches make clear that the exercise of this aspect ofsovereignty is not inconsistent with federal policy and there-fore with the position of the tribes. Thus, while Duro mayhave been a correct federal-common-law decision at the time,the political branches have subsequently made clear that the

4 JUSTICE SOUTER believes that I have overlooked Oliphant's relianceon sources other than "treaties, statutes, and the views of the ExecutiveBranch." Post, at 230, n. 2. JUSTICE SOUTER quotes the following pas-sage from Oliphant: "[E]ven ignoring treaty provisions and congressionalpolicy, Indians do not have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians absentaffirmative delegation of such power by Congress .... Indian tribes areprohibited from exercising both those powers of autonomous states thatare expressly terminated by Congress and those powers inconsistent withtheir status." 435 U. S., at 208 (emphasis added; internal quotation marksand citation omitted). The second quoted sentence is entirely consistentwith federal common lawmaking and is difficult to understand as anythingelse. I admit that the first sentence, which removes from considerationmost of the sources of federal common law, makes the second sentencepuzzling. But this is precisely the confusion that I have identified andthat I hope the Court begins to resolve.

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


tribes' exercise of criminal jurisdiction against nonmemberIndians is consistent with federal policy. The potential con-flicts on which Duro must have been premised, according tothe political branches, do not exist. See also ante, at 205.I therefore agree that, as the case comes to us, the Tribeacted as a separate sovereign when it prosecuted respond-ent. Accordingly, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not barthe subsequent federal prosecution.

III

I believe that we must examine more critically our tribalsovereignty case law. Both the Court and the dissent, how-ever, compound the confusion by failing to undertake thenecessary rigorous constitutional analysis. I would beginby carefully following our assumptions to their logical con-clusions and by identifying the potential sources of federalpower to modify tribal sovereignty.

The dissent admits that "[t]reaties and statutes delineatingthe tribal-federal relationship are properly viewed as an in-dependent elaboration by the political branches of the finedetails of the tribes' dependent position, which strips thetribes of any power to exercise criminal jurisdiction overthose outside their own memberships." Post, at 228. Tothe extent that this is a description of the federal-common-law process, I agree. But I do not understand how the dis-sent can then conclude that "the jurisdictional implications[arising from this analysis are] constitutional in nature."Ibid. By this I understand the dissent to mean that Con-gress cannot alter the result, though the dissent neverquite says so.

The analysis obviously has constitutional implications. Itis, for example, dispositive of respondent's double jeopardyclaim. But it does not follow that this Court's federal-common-law decisions limiting tribes' authority to exercisetheir inherent sovereignty somehow become enshrined asconstitutional holdings that the political branches cannot



alter. When the political branches demonstrate that a par-ticular exercise of the tribes' sovereign power is in factconsistent with federal policy, the underpinnings of afederal-common-law decision disabling the exercise of thattribal power disappear. Although I do not necessarily agreethat the tribes have any residual inherent sovereignty orthat Congress is the constitutionally appropriate branch tomake adjustments to sovereignty, see Part II, supra, it isimportant to recognize the logical implications of theseassumptions.

Similarly unavailing is the dissent's observation that whenwe perform the separate-sovereign analysis "we are under-taking a constitutional analysis based on legal categories ofconstitutional dimension." Post, at 229. The dissent con-cludes from this that our double jeopardy analysis in thiscontext "must itself have had constitutional status." Ibid.This ipse dixit does not transform our common-law decisionsinto constitutional holdings. Cf. Dickerson v. United States,530 U. S. 428, 459-461 (2000) (SCALIA, J., dissenting).

I do, however, agree that this case raises important consti-tutional questions that the Court does not begin to answer.The Court utterly fails to find any provision of the Constitu-tion that gives Congress enumerated power to alter tribalsovereignty. The Court cites the Indian Commerce Clauseand the treaty power. Ante, at 200. I cannot agree thatthe Indian Commerce Clause "'provide[s] Congress with ple-nary power to legislate in the field of Indian affairs."' Ibid.(quoting Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U. S.163, 192 (1989)). At one time, the implausibility of this as-sertion at least troubled the Court, see, e. g., United Statesv. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 378-379 (1886) (considering sucha construction of the Indian Commerce Clause to be "verystrained"), and I would be willing to revisit the question.Cf., e. g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598 (2000);United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995); id., at 584-593(THOMAS, J., concurring).

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


Next, the Court acknowledges that "[t]he treaty powerdoes not literally authorize Congress to act legislatively,for it is an Article II power authorizing the President, notCongress, 'to make Treaties."' Ante, at 201 (quoting U. S.Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2). This, of course, suffices to showthat it provides no power to Congress, at least in the absenceof a specific treaty. Cf. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416(1920). The treaty power does not, as the Court seems tobelieve, provide Congress with free-floating power to legis-late as it sees fit on topics that could potentially implicatesome unspecified treaty. Such an assertion is especiallyironic in light of Congress' enacted prohibition on Indiantreaties.

In the end, the Court resorts to citing past examples ofcongressional assertions of this or similar power. Ante,at 202-203. At times, such history might suffice. Cf.Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654, 686 (1981); Youngs-town Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 610-611(1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). But it does not sufficehere for at least two reasons. First, federal Indian law is atodds with itself. I find it difficult to reconcile the result inWheeler with Congress' 1871 prospective prohibition on themaking of treaties with the Indian tribes. The Federal Gov-ernment cannot simultaneously claim power to regulate vir-tually every aspect of the tribes through ordinary domesticlegislation and also maintain that the tribes possess anythingresembling "sovereignty." See Part II, supra. In short,the history points in both directions.

Second, much of the practice that the Court cites does notactually help its argument. The "Insular Cases," which in-clude the Hawaii and Puerto Rico examples, ante, at 203-204,involved Territories of the United States, over which Con-gress has plenary power to govern and regulate. See Reidv. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 13 (1957); U. S. Const., Art. IV, § 3,cl. 2. The existence of a textual source for congressionalpower distinguishes these cases. And, incidentally, al-


SOUTER, J., dissenting

though one might think that Congress' authority over thetribes could be found in Article IV, § 3, cl. 2, the Court hasheld that the Territories are the United States for doublejeopardy purposes, see, e. g., 'Wheeler, 435 U. S., at 321-322;Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P. R.), Ltd., 302 U. S. 253, 264-266(1937), which would preclude the result in Wheeler. It is forthis reason as well that the degree of autonomy of PuertoRico is beside the point. See Wheeler, supra, at 321; post,at 229.

The Court should admit that it has failed in its quest tofind a source of congressional power to adjust tribal sover-eignty. Such an acknowledgment might allow the Court toask the logically antecedent question whether Congress (asopposed to the President) has this power. A cogent answerwould serve as the foundation for the analysis of the sover-eignty issues posed by this case. We might find that theFederal Government cannot regulate the tribes through or-dinary domestic legislation and simultaneously maintain thatthe tribes are sovereigns in any meaningful sense. Butuntil we begin to analyze these questions honestly and rigor-ously, the confusion that I have identified will continue tohaunt our cases.

JUSTICE SOUTER, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins,dissenting.

It is as true today as it was in 1886 that the relationshipof Indian tribes to the National Government is "an anoma-lous one and of a complex character." United States v.Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 381. Questions of tribal jurisdiction,whether legislative or judicial, do not get much help fromthe general proposition that tribes are "domestic dependentnations," Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 17 (1831), or"wards of the [American] nation," Kagama, supra, at 383.Our cases deciding specific questions, however, demonstratethat the tribes do retain jurisdiction necessary to protecttribal self-government or control internal tribal relations,

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544, 564 (1981), includingthe right to prosecute tribal members for crimes, UnitedStates v. Wheeler, 435 U. S. 313, 323-324 (1978), a sovereignright that is "inherent," ibid., but neither exclusive, Ka-gama, supra, at 384-385 (federal criminal jurisdiction), norimmune to abrogation by Congress, Wheeler, supra, at 323("the sufferance of Congress"). Furthermore, except asprovided by Congress, tribes lack criminal jurisdiction overnon-Indians, Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U. S. 191, 212(1978), and over nonmember Indians, Duro v. Reina, 495U. S. 676, 685, 688 (1990).

Of particular relevance today, we held in Duro that be-cause tribes have lost their inherent criminal jurisdictionover nonmember Indians, any subsequent exercise of suchjurisdiction "could only have come to the Tribe" (if at all)"by delegation from Congress." Id., at 686. Three yearslater, in South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U. S. 679 (1993), wereiterated this understanding that any such "delegation"would not be a restoration of prior inherent sovereignty; wespecifically explained that "tribal sovereignty over nonmem-bers cannot survive without express congressional delega-tion, and is therefore not inherent." Id., at 695, n. 15 (em-phasis in original; citation and internal quotation marksomitted).1 Our precedent, then, is that any tribal exerciseof criminal jurisdiction over nonmembers necessarily restson a "delegation" of federal power and is not akin to a State'scongressionally permitted exercise of some authority thatwould otherwise be barred by the dormant CommerceClause, see New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 171(1992). It is more like the delegation of lawmaking powerto an administrative agency, whose jurisdiction would noteven exist absent congressional authorization.

1 Bourland was a civil case about the regulation of hunting and fishingby non-Indians. Its applicability in the criminal context is presumablya fortiori.



It is of no moment that we have given ostensibly alternat-ing explanations for this conclusion. We have sometimes in-dicated that the tribes' lack of inherent criminal jurisdictionover nonmembers is a necessary legal consequence of thebasic fact that the tribes are dependent on the Federal Gov-ernment. Wheeler, supra, at 326 ("[The tribes' inability to]try nonmembers in tribal courts . . . rest[s] on the fact thatthe dependent status of Indian tribes within our territorialjurisdiction is necessarily inconsistent with their freedom in-dependently to determine their external relations"); Oli-phant, 435 U. S., at 210 ("By submitting to the overridingsovereignty of the United States, Indian tribes thereforenecessarily give up their power to try non-Indian citizens ofthe United States . . ."). At other times, our language hassuggested that the jurisdictional limit stems from congres-sional and treaty limitations on tribal powers. See id., at204 ("Congress' various actions and inactions in regulatingcriminal jurisdiction on Indian reservations demonstrated anintent to reserve jurisdiction over non-Indians for the federalcourts"); National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe,471 U. S. 845, 853-854 (1985) ("In Oliphant we ... concludedthat federal legislation conferring jurisdiction on the fed-eral courts to try non-Indians for offenses committed inIndian Country had implicitly pre-empted tribal jurisdic-tion"). What has never been explicitly stated, but shouldcome as no surprise, is that these two accounts are not incon-sistent. Treaties and statutes delineating the tribal-federalrelationship are properly viewed as an independent elabora-tion by the political, branches of the fine details of the tribes'dependent position, which strips the tribes of any power toexercise criminal jurisdiction over those outside their ownmemberships.

What should also be clear, and what I would hold today, isthat our previous understanding of the jurisdictional implica-tions of dependent sovereignty was constitutional in nature,certainly so far as its significance under the Double Jeopardy

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


Clause is concerned. Our discussions of Indian sovereigntyhave naturally focused on the scope of tribes' inherent legis-lative or judicial jurisdiction. E. g., Nevada v. Hicks, 533U. S. 353 (2001) (jurisdiction of tribal courts over civil suitagainst state official); South Dakota v. Bourland, supra(tribal regulations governing hunting and fishing). And ap-plication of the double jeopardy doctrine of dual sovereignty,under which one independent sovereign's exercise of crimi-nal jurisdiction does not bar another sovereign's subsequentprosecution of the same defendant, turns on just this ques-tion of how far a prosecuting entity's inherent jurisdictionextends. Grafton v. United States, 206 U. S. 333, 354-355(1907). When we enquire "whether the two [prosecuting]entities draw their authority to punish the offender from dis-tinct sources of power," Heath v. Alabama, 474 U. S. 82, 88(1985), in other words, we are undertaking a constitutionalanalysis based on legal categories of constitutional dimension(i. e., is this entity an independent or dependent sovereign?).Thus, our application of the doctrines of independent anddependent sovereignty to Indian tribes in response to a dou-ble jeopardy claim must itself have had constitutional status.See Wheeler, supra, at 326 (holding that tribes' inability toprosecute nonmembers "rest[s] on the fact that the depend-ent status of Indian tribes within our territorial jurisdictionis necessarily inconsistent with their freedom independentlyto determine their external relations").

That means that there are only two ways that a tribe'sinherent sovereignty could be restored so as to alter applica-tion of the dual sovereignty rule: either Congress could grantthe same independence to the tribes that it did to the Philip-pines, see ante, at 204, or this Court could repudiate its exist-ing doctrine of dependent sovereignty. The first alternativehas obviously not been attempted, and I see no reason for usto venture down a path toward the second. To begin with,the theory we followed before today has the virtue of fittingthe facts: no one could possibly deny that the tribes are sub-



ordinate to the National Government. Furthermore, whilethis is not the place to reexamine the concept of dual sover-eignty itself, there is certainly no reason to adopt a canon ofbroad construction calling for maximum application of thedoctrine. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, principlesof stare decisis are particularly compelling in the law oftribal jurisdiction, an area peculiarly susceptible to confu-sion. And confusion, I fear, will be the legacy of today'sdecision, for our failure to stand by what we have previouslysaid reveals that our conceptualizations of sovereignty anddependent sovereignty are largely rhetorical.2

2 JUSTICE THOMAS's disagreement with me turns ultimately on his readi-ness to discard prior case law in this field and, indeed, on his rejection inthis very case of the concept of dependent sovereignty. He notes, forexample, ante, at 220 (opinion concurring in judgment), that the Court inHeath v. Alabama, 474 U. S. 82, 88 (1985), explained that one act thatviolates the peace and dignity of two sovereigns constitutes two separateoffenses for purposes of double jeopardy. JUSTICE THOMAS then con-cludes that whether an act violates a sovereign's peace and dignity doesnot depend (when the sovereign is an Indian tribe) on whether the perpe-trator is a member of the tribe. JUSTICE THOMAS therefore assumes thattribes "retain inherent sovereignty to try anyone who violates their crimi-nal laws." Ante, at 220. This Court, however, has held exactly to thecontrary: a tribe has no inherent jurisdiction to prosecute a nonmember.In rejecting this precedent, JUSTICE THOMAS implicitly rejects the con-cept of dependent sovereignty, upon which our holdings in United Statesv. Wheeler, 435 U. S. 313 (1978), and Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435U. S. 191 (1978), rested. Reciting Oliphant's examination of treaties, stat-utes, and views of the Executive Branch, JUSTICE THOMAS attempts tosuggest that these opinions were only momentary expressions of malleablefederal policy. But he somehow ignores Oliphant's own emphasis that itsanalysis did not rest on historical expressions of federal policy; rather,"even ignoring treaty provisions and congressional policy, Indians do nothave criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians absent affirmative delegationof such power by Congress .... Indian tribes are prohibited from exercis-ing both those powers of autonomous states that are expressly terminatedby Congress and those powers inconsistent with their status." Id., at208 (emphasis in original; citation and internal quotation marks omitted);see also Duro v. Reina, 495 U. S. 676, 686 (1990). There is simply no basisfor JUSTICE THOMAS's recharacterization of this clear holding.

Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004)


I would therefore stand by our explanations in Oliphantand Duro and hold that Congress cannot reinvest tribalcourts with inherent criminal jurisdiction over nonmemberIndians. It is not that I fail to appreciate Congress's ex-press wish that the jurisdiction conveyed by statute betreated as inherent, but Congress cannot control the inter-pretation of the statute in a way that is at odds with theconstitutional consequences of the tribes' continuing depend-ent status. What may be given controlling effect, however,is the principal object of the 1990 amendments to the IndianCivil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., which wasto close "the jurisdictional void" created by Duro by recog-nizing (and empowering) the tribal court as "the best forumto handle misdemeanor cases over non-member Indians,"H. R. Rep. No. 102-261, p. 6 (1991). I would therefore honorthe drafters' substantive intent by reading the Act as a del-egation of federal prosecutorial power that eliminates thejurisdictional gap.3 Finally, I would hold that a tribe'sexercise of this delegated power bars subsequent federalprosecution for the same offense. I respectfully dissent.

3 JUSTICE THOMAS suggests that this delegation may violate the separa-tion of powers. Ante, at 215-217. But we are not resolving the questionwhether Lara could be "prosecuted pursuant to ... delegated power," 324F. 3d 635, 640 (CA8 2003), only whether the prosecution was in fact theexercise of an inherent power, see Pet. for Cert. (I), and whether theexercise of a delegated power would implicate the protection against dou-ble jeopardy.

Documents

UNITED STATES v. LARA · Cite as: 541 U. S. 193 (2004) Opinion of the Court After Lara's tribal conviction, the Federal Government charged Lara in the Federal District Court for the