About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (June 11, 2021)

handle is hein.crs/govedqx0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional ______ *Research Service Supreme Court Rules on Authority of Tribal Police to Stop Non-Indians June 11, 2021 On June 1, 2021, the Supreme Court unanimously held in United States v. Cooley (Cooley) that Indian tribal law enforcement officers may stop, search, and temporarily detain a non-Indian motorist traveling on a public highway within an Indian reservation if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the motorist has violated or will violate federal or state law. The Court held that the source of this power is an Indian tribe's retained inherent authority to protect public safety. In reaching this conclusion, the opinion draws upon earlier decisions of the Court, particularly Montana v. United States (Montana). In Montana, the Court noted that, although tribes generally retain no authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee land within a reservation, they do retain some authority over conduct [that] threatens or has some direct effect on . . . the health or welfare of the tribe. The Supreme Court's decision in Cooley reverses a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit discussed in an earlier Legal Sidebar. After a brief summary of background on tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians, this Sidebar discusses the Court's decision in Cooley and identifies possible considerations for Congress. Tribal Police Authority over Non-Indians on a Reservation Since the 1830s, the Supreme Court has recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations and characterized them as possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory. But in 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that tribes lack inherent jurisdiction to try and to punish non- Indians. This means that crimes committed by non-Indians within an Indian reservation (with a few exceptions such as domestic violence crimes, which Congress included in the Violence Against Women Act) are generally subject to state or federal jurisdiction, not tribal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court acknowledged in Duro v Reina that tribes retain the power to restrain those who disturb public order on the reservation and, if necessary, to eject them. However, in Strate v. A-1 Contractors, the Court cautioned that-aside from certain exceptional situations-such power does not extend to excluding non- Indians from public highways running through a reservation. In Montana v. United States, the Court held that an Indian tribe had no authority to regulate hunting and fishing on non-Indian fee lands within a reservation and articulated a general proposition that the Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10608 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress