Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe

1. Suppose Texas did not have the right to try people from New York for crimes committed in Texas. In what sense would Texas have any sovereignty? Would it matter whether some other court did a good, bad or indifferent job at prosecuting New Yorkers when they injured people or property in Texas?

2. Why doesn't evolution in the sophistication of Indian tribes mean that they gain the inherent authority to try non-citizens?

3. Does your opinion about this case change based on the protections offered defendants (whether Indian or non-Indian) in tribal courts? If, for example, the Indian Civil Rights Act called for even greater protection of defendants, would that alter your view about the inherent authority of tribes to protect tribal lands against infractions by non-Indians.

4. If Indians clearly mark their lands as tribal and a non-Indian enters voluntarily, might they be said to have consented to trial in a tribal court for alleged violations therein?

Supreme Court of the United States

435 U.S. 191, 55 L. Ed. 2d 209, 98 S. Ct. 1011, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 66, SCDB 1977-048

No. 76-5729

1978-03-06

This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.