Difference between revisions of "Duro v. Reina"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→References: Spelling/Grammar Check & Cleanup) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Duro v. Reina'', 495 U.S. 676, 685, 688 (1990), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that, except as provided by [[Congress]], tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians. In other words, an Indian tribe cannot prosecute Indians who are not members of that tribe, except as authorized by [[Congress]]. | + | In '''''Duro v. Reina''''', 495 U.S. 676, 685, 688 (1990), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that, except as provided by [[Congress]], tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians. In other words, an Indian tribe cannot prosecute Indians who are not members of that tribe, except as authorized by [[Congress]]. |
| + | |||
| + | In response to this ruling, Congress amended the Indian Self Governance section of the Indian Civil Rights Act to state that Indians have the right to prosecute anyone who commits a crime on that tribe's territory, regardless of Tribal Affiliation. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] |
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Indian Law]] |
Latest revision as of 17:30, June 28, 2016
In Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 685, 688 (1990), the U.S. Supreme Court held that, except as provided by Congress, tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians. In other words, an Indian tribe cannot prosecute Indians who are not members of that tribe, except as authorized by Congress.
In response to this ruling, Congress amended the Indian Self Governance section of the Indian Civil Rights Act to state that Indians have the right to prosecute anyone who commits a crime on that tribe's territory, regardless of Tribal Affiliation.