No. 03-107 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. BILLY JO LARA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI THEODORE B. OLSON Solicitor General Counsel of Record CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY Acting Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL R. DREEBEN Deputy Solicitor General BARBARA MCDOWELL Assistant to the Solicitor General RICHARD A. FRIEDMAN Attorney Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED In Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), this Court held that Indian Tribes had lost their inherent sovereign power to prosecute members of other Tribes for of- fenses committed on their reservations. Congress re- sponded to the Court’s decision by amending the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, to “recognize[] and affirm[]” the “inherent power” of Tribes to “exer- cise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians.” The ques- tion presented is: Whether Section 1301, as amended, validly restores the Tribes’ sovereign power to prosecute members of other Tribes (rather than delegates federal prosecuto- rial power to the Tribes), such that a federal prosecu- tion following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below ................................................................................ 1 Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 1 Constitutional and statutory provisions involved ................... 2 Reasons for granting the petition................................................ 9 A. The court of appeals erred in holding that Congress cannot remove impediments to the exercise of tribal sovereign powers ......................... 10 B. The court of appeals erred in rewriting the ICRA amendment as a delegation of federal prosecutorial power .................................................... 16 C. Two circuits with extensive Indian country are in square conflict on the validity of the ICRA amendment as a restoration of tribal sovereign authority .................................................... 18 D. The question presented in this case has significant ramifications for law enforcement in Indian country ......................................................... 20 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 24 Appendix A ..................................................................................... 1a Appendix B ..................................................................................... 23a Appendix C ..................................................................................... 35a Appendix D ..................................................................................... 44a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977) ..................... 6 California v. Mesa, 813 F.2d 960 (9th Cir. 1987), aff ’d, 489 U.S. 121 (1989) ...................................................... 18 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831) ........................................................................................ 14 Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990) ....... 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15 (III) IV Cases—Continued: Page Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985) ............................... 3, 10 Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728 (1984) ........................... 17 Hillside Dairy Inc. v. Lyons, 123 S. Ct. 2142 (2003) ........................................................................................ 16 Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982) ........................................................................................ 15 Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981) ........................ 3 Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) ................ 14, 15 Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) ............................ 14 Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99 (1993) ......................... 15 Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) ................................. 14, 15 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) ....................................................................... 3, 12, 13-14, 15 Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (1946) ........................................................................................ 16 Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996) ................ 22 Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) ........................................................................................ 14 South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) .............. 15 United States v. Enas, 255 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1115 (2002) (en banc) ........................................................................ 2, 9, 18, 20 United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975) ................. 14, 15 United States v. Phelps, 168 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 1999) ......................................................................................... 17 United States v. Weaselhead, 156 F.3d 818, reh’g granted and opinion vacated, 165 F.3d 1209 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 829 (1999) ............................. 6, 18 United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) .................. 3, 5, 10, 11, 23 Statutes: U.S. Const.: Art. I, § 8, Cl. 3 (Commerce Clause) .................................. 16 Amend. V (Double Jeopardy Clause) .......................... passim V Statutes: Page Act of Nov. 5, 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-511, Title VIII, § 8077, 104 Stat. 1892-1893 (25 U.S.C. 1301(2) and (4)) ............................................................................................. 4 Act of Oct. 28, 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-137, 105 Stat. 646 ..... 4 McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. ................. 16 18 U.S.C. 111(a) ........................................................................ 22 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1) ................................................................... 5, 6 18 U.S.C. 111(b) ........................................................................ 22 18 U.S.C. 113(a) ........................................................................ 18 18 U.S.C. 1161 ........................................................................... 15 18 U.S.C. 1162 ........................................................................... 21 28 U.S.C. 1291 ........................................................................... 6 28 U.S.C. 1360 ........................................................................... 21 Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301 et seq. ........................................................................................ 2 25 U.S.C. 1301(2) ............................................. 2, 4, 9, 12, 16 25 U.S.C. 1301(4) .............................................................. 4 25 U.S.C. 1302 ................................................................... 2, 17 25 U.S.C. 1302(7) .............................................................. 22 25 U.S.C. 1303 ................................................................... 2 Indian Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 1153 ............. 3, 4, 10-11, 18 Miscellaneous: H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 261, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991) ........................................................................................ 13 H.R. Rep. No. 61, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991) ..... 13, 17, 20-21, 22 S. Rep. No. 168, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991) ............ 13, 20, 21 In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-107 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. BILLY JO LARA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI The Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States of America, respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in this case. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the en banc court of appeals (App., in- fra, 1a-22a) is reported at 324 F.3d 635. The vacated panel opinion (App., infra, 23a-34a) is reported at 294 F.3d 1004. The opinion of the district court (App., in- fra, 35a-43a) is unreported. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on March 24, 2003. On June 13, 2003, Justice Thomas ex- tended the time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to and including July 22, 2003. The juris- diction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). (1) 2 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 1. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases aris- ing in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public dan- ger; nor shall any person be subject for the same of- fence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a wit- ness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 2. Sections 1301 through 1303 of Title 25 of the United States Code are reproduced at App., infra, 44a- 46a. STATEMENT In Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), this Court held that Indian Tribes no longer possessed the inherent authority