{
  "id": "RL32361",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32361",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101199,
      "date": "2004-04-21",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-08T14:21:49.350708",
      "title": "Tribal Sovereignty Over Nonmember Indians: United States v. Billy Jo Lara",
      "summary": "On April 19, 2004, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in  United States v. Billy\n Jo\nLara  allowing Indian tribes and the federal government to each prosecute nonmember\ndefendants\nfor the same on-reservation crime without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. This case\npresented interesting questions of Indian tribal sovereignty and how Indian tribes fit into the\nAmerican Constitutional structure of government. The case centered around a tribe's authority to\nprosecute nonmember Indians for crimes committed on that tribe's reservation. \n  Billy Jo Lara, an Indian, was arrested by Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) officers on the Spirit\nLake Indian Reservation in 2001 for public intoxication. In the course of his arrest, Lara, who is not\na member of the Spirit Lake Nation, struck one of the officers and subsequently pled guilty to three\nviolations of the Spirit Lake Tribal Code.    Lara was later charged in federal court with\nassaulting a\nfederal officer, and moved to dismiss on the ground that his having to stand trial in both tribal and\nfederal court for   the same offense violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the\nFifth Amendment.  \n The Eighth and Ninth Circuits, when confronted with this issue, had each reached very\ndifferent\nconclusions, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve this split.   \n  In order to answer the question of whether or not the federal prosecution violated Double\nJeopardy, the Court had to explicate more clearly than in its previous cases the source of Indian tribal\nsovereignty. Relatedly, the Court also had to determine whether the answer to this question is\ngrounded in the Constitution or in federal common law and legislation.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32361",
          "sha1": "09549a87f43973223546542241c1bc321cd97245",
          "filename": "files/20040421_RL32361_09549a87f43973223546542241c1bc321cd97245.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32361",
          "sha1": "e91afd8c75fdd6c7f17e2ceaad8498197156fa07",
          "filename": "files/20040421_RL32361_e91afd8c75fdd6c7f17e2ceaad8498197156fa07.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}