DOCSLIB.ORG

The Supreme Court's Inconsistent Treatment of Tribal Sovereignty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Supreme Court's Inconsistent Treatment of Tribal Sovereignty Touro Law Review Volume 17 Number 4 Article 6 March 2016 Wheeler for Two, Do You Have a Reservation? The Supreme Court's Inconsistent Treatment of Tribal Sovereignty Fred Kantrow Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Kantrow, Fred (2016) "Wheeler for Two, Do You Have a Reservation? The Supreme Court's Inconsistent Treatment of Tribal Sovereignty," Touro Law Review: Vol. 17 : No. 4 , Article 6. Available at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview/vol17/iss4/6 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Touro Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kantrow: Wheeler for Two WHEELER FOR TWO, DO YOU HAVE A RESERVATION? THE SUPREME COURT'S INCONSISTENT TREATMENT OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY Fred Kantrow' I. INTRODUCTION In 1978 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Wheeler,2 where the Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment3 does not bar the prosecution of a Native American in a Federal District Court under the Federal Major Crimes Act,4 even though the defendant had previously been convicted in a tribal court of a lesser included offense arising out of the same incident. The Court held that tribes act as independent sovereigns rather than as an arm of the federal government and therefore the doctrine of dual sovereignty applied.5 The Court's decision in Wheeler is misplaced because the reasoning is flawed, and this paper will critique that decision. To reach its decision in Wheeler, the Court relied on the historical developments in cases that examined the status of the Indian nation. This note examines the historical development of decisions involving Native Americans and the relationship between decisions made prior to and subsequent to Wheeler in an attempt to understand how the Supreme Court came to its ultimate conclusion in Wheeler. In addition, this note examines the applicability of the Double Jeopardy Clause to the prosecution of Native Americans in federal courts subsequent to prosecution in tribal courts. As a starting point, I present a short overview of the doctrine of double jeopardy and how the Supreme Court has applied it. Next, a brief section outlines the Indian Civil Rights 1 J. D. Candidate Touro Law Center 2003. The author wishes to express gratitude to Professor Jeffrey Morris for his guidance in interpreting the law and his tireless efforts on the author's behalf. 2435 U.S. 313 (1978). 3 U.S. CONST. amend. V., provides that "[n]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jropardy of life or limb... " Pub. L. No. 89-707, 80 Stat. 1100 (codified as 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (2001)). 5 Wheeler, 435 U.S. at 332. Published by Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center, 2001 1 Touro Law Review, Vol. 17 [2001], No. 4, Art. 6 802 TOURO LAW REVIEW [Vol 17 Act 6 and the Major Crimes Act. 7 That section is followed with the so-called trilogy of Marshall Cases, Johnson v. McIntosh,8 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia9 and Worcester v. Georgia.'0 These three cases combined to form the basis of the Court's understanding of tribal sovereignty. These cases are followed by a number of decisions that reflect the lower courts' decisions, as well as the Supreme Court's holdings as to the status of Native Americans today and how that status is determinative of whether double jeopardy applies. Next, an examination of the decision in United States v. Wheeler is presented. Finally, a review of the decision in United States v. Weaselhead 1 is explored and used as a basis for criticisms of the Supreme Court's decisions. II. OVERVIEW OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY The concept of protection from double jeopardy was 12 recognized even before the Fifth Amendment was adopted. Evidence supports a conclusion that at common law double jeopardy acted as a bar to successive prosecutions by different sovereigns. 13 The Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause provides, "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to 6 Pub. L. No. 90-284, 82 Stat. 77, codified as 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1334 (2001). 7 18 U.S.C. § 1153. a 21 U.S. 543 (1823). 9 30 U.S. 1 (1832). 10 31 U.S. 515 (1832). " 156 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 582 U.S. 829 (1999). 12 Erin M. Cranman, Comment, The Dual Sovereignty Exception to Double Jeopardy: A Champion of Justice or a Violation of a Fundamental Right?, 14 EMORY INT'L L. REv. 1641, 1644 (2000). The concept of double jeopardy first appeared in Massachusetts where the doctrine was applied to both criminal and civil cases. The doctrine was subsequently adopted by neighboring colonies. A basic protection, it was soon incorporated as a standard provision in the constitution and case law of the colonies. The drafters of the federal constitution recognized the importance placed on the doctrine and soon incorporated it into the federal constitution. 13 See, e.g., Ronald J. Allen & John P. Ratnaswamy, Heath v. Alabama: A Case Study of Doctrineand Rationality in the Supreme Court, 76 J. CRIM L. & CRIMINOLOGY 801, 810 (1985). https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview/vol17/iss4/6 2 Kantrow: Wheeler for Two 2001 WHEELER FOR TWO 803 be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb .. .. It is clearly understood that the same government (i.e. federal government or state government) shall not prosecute the same crime twice, against the same defendant.1 5 However, the federal government may prosecute a criminal defendant Under a federal statute, despite the fact that the same defendant had previously16 been prosecuted for the same crime under a state statute. The seminal case on double jeopardy, Abbate v. United States, provided a vehicle for the Supreme Court to settle the issue of the ability of the federal government to prosecute a criminal defendant after the same defendant had been previously tried under state law. 17 Abbate sought review of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's opinion which affirmed that the federal prosecution of the petitioner in connection with a conspiracy to destroy property did not subject 14 U.S. CONST. amend. V. '5 Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 194 (1959) ("The Fifth Amendment, like all the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the Federal Government.... and the double jeopardy therein forbidden is a second prosecution under authority of the Federal Government after a first trial for the same offense under the same authority."). 16 Abbate, 359 U.S. at 192. Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of a State or territory. He may be said to owe allegiance to two sovereigns, and may be liable to punishment for an infraction of the laws of either. The same act may be an offence or transgression of the laws of both.... That either or both may (if they see fit) punish such an offender cannot be doubted. Yet it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offence; but only that by one act he has committed two offences, for each of which he is justly punishable. 17 Id. The petitioners, with Shelby and McLeod, were previously indicted by the State of Illinois for violating an Illinois statute making it a crime to conspire to injure or destroy the property of another. The indictment describes the property as "communication facilities belonging to the Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company" and "belonging to the American Telephone and Telegraph Company." The petitioners entered pleas of guilty to the indictment and were each sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Published by Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center, 2001 3 Touro Law Review, Vol. 17 [2001], No. 4, Art. 6 TOURO LAW REVIEW [Vol 17 the petitioner to double jeopardy due to his previous convictions 8 under Illinois state law for the same acts.' A brief overview of the facts in Abbate reveals that Abbate was successfully prosecuted under Illinois law for conspiring to destroy telephone communication facilities belonging to the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company. 19 Subsequently, a federal indictment was returned in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. 20 This indictment did not refer to the facilities as belonging to the telephone companies, but charged the offense of violating 18 U.S.C. 371,21 telephone equipment located in the states of Mississippi, Tennessee and Louisiana. The equipment was considered to be essential and integral parts of a system of communication that was operated and controlled by the United States. McLeod confessed to his part in the conspiracy and testified at the federal trial to both the acts of his participation as well as Abbate's in the conspiracy. These same acts were the basis of the Illinois convictions.22 Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.23 Fearing that federal law enforcement would necessarily be hindered if not for the federal government's ability to prosecute offenses against federal statutes, Justice Brennan reasoned that ts Abbate, 359 U.S. at 188. 19 Id. at 187. 20 Id. at 188 (The conspiracy originated in Chicago, Illinois, hence the violation of the Illinois statute, the property that was destroyed was located in Mississippi). 21 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2001), which provides in pertinent part: If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Judicial Power and the Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring the Constitutional Vesting Thesis
    GEORGIA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 46 FALL 2011 NUMBER 1 ARTICLES THE JUDICIAL POWER AND THE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS: EXPLORING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VESTING THESIS A. Benjamin Spencer* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................... ........ 2 II. THE PLAN OF THE CONVENTION ......................... 6 A. THE DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787.......7 B. THE DEBATES IN THE STATE CONVENTIONS ............. 14 C. THE FEDERALIST PAPERS...........................24 III. THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL POWER...............36 A. THE UNDERSTANDING OF CONGRESS ................... 37 B. THE VIEW OF THE COURT. ........................... 42 IV. A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL POWER ..................................... 46 V. CONCLUSION ........................................ 66 * Visiting Professor, University of Virginia School of Law; Professor of Law, Washington & Lee University School of Law. I am thankful to the University of Virginia for its generous grant assistance that supported my work on this Article. Thanks also go to Michael Collins and Caprice Roberts for their helpful comments and suggestions. 1 2 GEORGIA LAWREVIEW [Vol. 46:1 The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.' I. INTRODUCTION Although the Constitution vests the "[J]udicial Power" of the United States in the Supreme Court and in any inferior courts that Congress establishes, 2 both Congress3 and the Court4 have long propounded the traditional view that the inferior courts may be deprived cognizance of some of the cases and controversies that fall within that power.5 Is this view fully consonant with the I THE FEDERALIST No. 48, at 279 (James Madison) (Am. Bar Ass'n 2009). 2 U.S. CONST. art.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventing the Federal District Courts of the Twentieth Century for the District of Columbia and the Nation
    "Uncle Sam Modernizes His Justice": Inventing the Federal District Courts of the Twentieth Century for the District of Columbia and the Nation JUDITH RESNIK* The celebration of the 200th birthday of the courts of the District of Columbia offers an opportunity to focus on the diversification and proliferationof the federal institutions of judging. During the twentieth century, the federal courts and Con- gress worked together to create a host of statutory federal judges, including magis- trate and bankruptcy judges who serve through appointmentsfrom Article III judges, as well as administrative law judges and hearing officers working within agencies. In addition to inventing this array of judicial officers, the federal judiciary also redefined the work of judging to include efforts to settle cases and to influence congressionaldeployment and allocation ofjurisdiction. The innovations have many sources. One is doctrinal. The authority of statutory judges stems from a rereadingofArticle III to license a great deal offederal adjudication without Article Ill's structuralprotections. As litigantschallenged the devolution ofjudicial power their claims became an occasion to explore the import of judicial independence. In general, the life-tenured judiciary permitted (and sometimes welcomed) congressional generation of many adjudicativeforms, seen not to pose a threat to "Article III values." The doctrine in turn was crafted in the face of pressures f-om an expanding federal docket that requiredsome form of change. The particularprograms chosen were based in part on perceptions of the lessening utility of adjudicatory methods, in part on a sense of varying levels of import of cases within the federal docket, and in part on incentives created by legal rules andpractices.
    [Show full text]
  • ESPINOZA, JERI ANDERSON, and JAIME SCHAEFER, Petitioners, V
    No. 18-1195 ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KENDRA ESPINOZA, JERI ANDERSON, and JAIME SCHAEFER, Petitioners, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, and GENE WALBORN, in his official capacity as DIRECTOR of the MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The Montana Supreme Court --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS --------------------------------- --------------------------------- MICHAEL BINDAS ERICA J. SMITH INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE RICHARD D. KOMER* 600 University Street INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE Suite 1730 901 North Glebe Road Seattle, WA 98101 Suite 900 (206) 957-1300 Arlington, VA 22203 [email protected] (703) 682-9320 [email protected] TIMOTHY D. KELLER [email protected] INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 398 South Mill Avenue WILLIAM W. M ERCER Suite 301 HOLLAND & HART LLP Tempe, AZ 85281 401 North 31st Street (480) 557-8300 Suite 1500 [email protected] Billings, MT 59103 (406) 252-2166 [email protected] *Counsel of Record ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED Does it violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Pro- tection Clause of the United States Constitution to in- validate
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
    Case 3:13-cr-00731-DRD-MEL Document 187 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff v. Criminal No. 13-731 (DRD) William Rosado-Cancel (1) Juan Antonio Rosario-Cintron (2) Defendants OPINION & ORDER Defendants William Rosado-Cancel1 and Juan Antonio Rosario-Cintrón (“Defendants”) move the Court to dismiss the two-count indictment on double jeopardy and/or issue preclusion grounds in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark Sanchez Valle decision. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863 (2016). However, it is a “fundamental principle that an accused must suffer jeopardy before he can suffer double jeopardy.” Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 393 (1975). Until now, despite being charged in commonwealth court, Defendants have yet to suffer jeopardy. Defendants’ issue preclusion argument also falters for several reasons: (1) jeopardy did not attach to the commonwealth pretrial proceedings, (2) the argument was untimely, and/or (3) there was no privity between the federal and Puerto Rico prosecutors. For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Marcos E. López’s reasoning and DENIES each Defendant’s motion to dismiss.2 1 The Court notes that this defendant has already pled guilty in this case. See Docket No. 142. 2 Both defendants use the same arguments, challenge the same charges, and are part of the same nucleus of facts. As such, the Court addresses both motions jointly in the instant opinion and order. Case 3:13-cr-00731-DRD-MEL Document 187 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 15 I.
    [Show full text]
  • 15-108 Puerto Rico V. Sanchez Valle (06/09/2016)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO v. SANCHEZ VALLE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO No. 15–108. Argued January 13, 2016—Decided June 9, 2016 Respondents Luis Sánchez Valle and Jaime Gómez Vázquez each sold a gun to an undercover police officer. Puerto Rican prosecutors indict­ ed them for illegally selling firearms in violation of the Puerto Rico Arms Act of 2000. While those charges were pending, federal grand juries also indicted them, based on the same transactions, for viola­ tions of analogous U. S. gun trafficking statutes. Both defendants pleaded guilty to the federal charges and moved to dismiss the pend­ ing Commonwealth charges on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court in each case dismissed the charges, rejecting prosecutors’ ar­ guments that Puerto Rico and the United States are separate sover­ eigns for double jeopardy purposes and so could bring successive prosecutions against each defendant. The Puerto Rico Court of Ap­ peals consolidated the cases and reversed. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico granted review and held, in line with the trial court, that Puerto Rico’s gun sale prosecutions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fading Free Exercise Clause
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 19 (2010-2011) Issue 3 Article 5 March 2011 The Fading Free Exercise Clause Rene Reyes Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Repository Citation Rene Reyes, The Fading Free Exercise Clause, 19 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 725 (2011), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol19/iss3/5 Copyright c 2011 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj THE FADING FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE René Reyes* ABSTRACT This Article uses the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez as a point of departure for analyzing the current state of free exercise doctrine. I argue that one of the most notable features of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) case is its almost total lack of engagement with the Free Exercise Clause. For the core of CLS’s complaint was unambiguously about the declaration and exercise of religious beliefs: the group claimed that it was being excluded from campus life because it required its members to live according to shared religious principles and to subscribe to a Statement of Faith. Yet notwithstanding the clear religious basis of its claims, CLS devoted a mere two pages to the Free Exercise Clause in its brief. The Court’s Free Exercise Clause analysis was similarly elliptical: the majority dispensed with the free exercise argument in a single footnote. For his part, Justice Alito did not even mention the Free Exercise Clause once in his lengthy dissent.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the California Exceptions in the Clean Air Act Are Unconstitutional by Valerie J.M
    Copyright © 2006 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. 36 ELR 10624 8-2006 ELRNEWS&ANALYSIS No Second-Class States: Why the California Exceptions in the Clean Air Act Are Unconstitutional by Valerie J.M. Brader Editors’Summary: The U.S. Department of Transportation’snew fuel economy rules for light trucks and sport utility vehicles are under fire, in part because the Bush Administration has taken the position that the new rules preempt the abil- ity of California to set its own stricter rules under the CAA. Yet according to Valerie Brader, there is a weightier reason the new rules should stand: the pro- visions of the CAA giving California these regulatory powers are unconstitu- tional. She argues that the equal footing doctrine, a principle of American law that predates the U.S. Constitution and is still in force today, prohibits laws that create a differential in governing power between the states. Congress’attempt to give California powers not given to other states violates that doctrine. I. Introduction honored right.”4 The senators’ letter cited several provisions of the CAA that grant California powers denied to all other The ability of California to set stricter air quality regulations states to regulate in the air quality arena, including in fuel than the other 49 states has been relatively uncontroversial economy.5 These provisions may be time-honored, as they for decades, but the U.S. Department of Transportation have been part of U.S. law since the 1970s. There is a legal (DOT) changed that in April 2006, by issuing a set of regula- rule that is far more time-honored, however, that undercuts tions that explicitly denied California the power to require the senators’ argument: the principle that all states are equal that light trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) meet in sovereignty.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Trust Or Equal Footing: a Historical Look at Public Use Rights in American Waters Sean Morrison
    Hastings Environmental Law Journal Volume 21 Article 6 Number 1 Winter 2015 1-1-2015 Public Trust or Equal Footing: A Historical Look at Public Use Rights in American Waters Sean Morrison Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_environmental_law_journal Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Sean Morrison, Public Trust or Equal Footing: A Historical Look at Public Use Rights in American Waters, 21 Hastings West Northwest J. of Envtl. L. & Pol'y 69 (2015) Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_environmental_law_journal/vol21/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Environmental Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Public Trust or Equal Footing: A Historical Look at Public Use Rights in American Waters Sean Morrison* I. INTRODUCTION II. THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW IN EARLY AMERICAN COURTS A. New Jersey Before and After Martin v. Lessee of Waddell B. Other State Law Decisions after Martin and Pollard v. Hagan III. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FEDERAL DEFINITION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS FOR PURPOSES OF TITLE IV. THE CONTINUED RELIANCE ON STATE LAW DEFINITIONS OF NAVIGABLE WATERS FOR PURPOSES OF TITLE A. The Great Inland Seas Exception: Hardin and Illinois Central B. After Illinois Central: Shively v. Bowlby and Donnelly v. United States V. THE SWITCH FROM A STATE TO FEDERAL LAW DEFINITION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS FOR PURPOSES OF TITLE A. The Brewer-Holt-Utah Trilogy B.
    [Show full text]
  • State of West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
    STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED State of West Virginia, October 30, 2014 released at 3:00 p.m. Plaintiff Below, Respondent RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA vs) No. 13-1122 (Cabell County 09-F-023) Robert Frazier, Defendant Below, Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Robert Frazier, by counsel, Crystal L. Walden, appeals the October 15, 2013, Order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County sentencing him to serve forty years in the penitentiary following his second degree murder conviction. The State, by counsel, Julie A. Warren, Assistant Attorney General, filed a response. This Court has considered the parties’ briefs, oral arguments, and the appendix record on appeal. We find no substantial question of law and a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure. For the reasons expressed below, the decision of the trial court is affirmed, in part, and vacated, in part. Factual and Procedural History On August 25, 2008, petitioner shot his girlfriend, fifty-three-year-old Kathy Smith, in the head with a 12 gauge shotgun following a domestic dispute. This shot was instantaneously fatal. Petitioner was charged with first degree murder. Following a jury trial in 2010, petitioner was convicted of the lesser included offense of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced petitioner to forty years imprisonment. Petitioner appealed, and this Court reversed the conviction and granted a new trial on the basis that petitioner’s rights under the Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article III section 14 of the West Virginia Constitution had been violated.1 In September of 2013, petitioner was tried again for the murder of Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • HERRERA V. WYOMING
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2018 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus HERRERA v. WYOMING CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF WYOMING, SHERIDAN COUNTY No. 17–532. Argued January 8, 2019—Decided May 20, 2019 An 1868 treaty between the United States and the Crow Tribe prom- ised that in exchange for most of the Tribe’s territory in modern-day Montana and Wyoming, its members would “have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon . and peace subsists . on the borders of the hunt- ing districts.” 15 Stat. 650. In 2014, Wyoming charged petitioner Clayvin Herrera with off-season hunting in Bighorn National Forest and being an accessory to the same. The state trial court rejected Herrera’s argument that he had a protected right to hunt in the for- est pursuant to the 1868 Treaty, and a jury convicted him. On ap- peal, the state appellate court relied on the reasoning of the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis, 73 F. 3d 982— which in turn relied upon this Court’s decision in Ward v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Disregarded Common Parentage of the Equal Footing and Public Trust Doctrines
    Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Faculty Scholarship 1-1-1997 The Disregarded Common Parentage of the Equal Footing and Public Trust Doctrines James R. Rasband BYU Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Admiralty Commons, and the Land Use Law Commons Recommended Citation James R. Rasband, The Disregarded Common Parentage of the Equal Footing and Public Trust Doctrines, 32 Lᴀɴᴅ & Wᴀᴛᴇʀ L. Rᴇᴠ., 1 (1997). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. University of Wyoming College of Law LANDANDWATER LAW REVIEW VOLUME XXXII 1997 NUMBER 1 TIE DISREGARDED COMMON PARENTAGE OF THE EQUAL FOOTING AND PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINES James R. Rasband' I. introduction ................................. 3 II. English Common Law on Sovereign Rights and Responsibilities with Respect to Land Under Navigable Water ............. 8 A. Early Understandings of Sovereign Power to Grant Land Under Navigable Water and Associated Resources .................................. 8 B. The Development of the Prima Facie Theory .......... 11 IlI. The Incorporation of the Prima Facie Theory into the Early Common Law of the United States .................... 14 A. Early Courts and Commentators' Adherence to the Prima Facie Theory ........................... 14 1. Copyright © 1996 by James R. Rasband. Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University. B.A. 1986, Brigham Young University; J.D. 1989 Harvard Law School. I am grateful to Kif Augustine Adams, Harrison Dunning, Albert Gidari Jr., and Kevin Worthen for their comments on earlier drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict of Laws--Equal Footing Doctrine Does Not Require Application of Federal Common Law to Resolve Ownership of Land Underly
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 12 Issue 3 1977 Conflict of Laws--Equal Footing Doctrine Does Not Require Application of Federal Common Law to Resolve Ownership of Land Underlying Navigable Waterways Which Are Not Interstate Boundaries Chris E. Hagberg Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Chris E. Hagberg, Conflict of Laws--Equal Footing Doctrine Does Not Require Application of Federal Common Law to Resolve Ownership of Land Underlying Navigable Waterways Which Are Not Interstate Boundaries, 12 Tulsa L. J. 593 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol12/iss3/9 This Casenote/Comment is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hagberg: Conflict of Laws--Equal Footing Doctrine Does Not Require Applica RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONFLICT OF LAWS-EQuAL FOOTING DOCTRINE DOES NOT RE- QUIRE APPLICATION OF FEDERAL COMMON LAW TO RESOLVE OWNERSHIP OF LAND UNDERLYING NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS WHICH ARE NOT INTERSTATE BOUNDARIES. Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand and Gravel Co., 97 S. Ct. 582 (1977). In Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand and Gravel Co.,' Oregon brought an ejectment action against the Corvallis Sand and Gravel Company, claiming title to two separate parcels of land in question. The land was part of the riverbed of the Willamette, a' nav- igable waterway. The first parcel had been part of the Willamette riverbed since before Oregon was admitted to the Union.
    [Show full text]