Tribal Sovereignty Influence in Indian Cases

Tribal Sovereignty Influence in Indian Cases

Student’s Name

Institution

Tribal Sovereignty Influence in Indian Cases

The national jurisdiction significantly made the Indian Americans get involved in various tribal cases regarding the recognition of their sovereignty. However, it consistently included the non-Indians who either visited or settled at the Indians reservations and significantly take advantage not being considered in the nation’s law regarding their unlawful deeds. The federal courts as well as other law enforcement bodies usually find themselves in stressful situations in carrying out jurisdiction as they did not have authority over the non-Indians and other visitors on the Indian lands. It significantly affected the Native Americans that were mostly the victims of the criminality caused by the strangers on their property, and they adequately sought government intervention to enhance justice. The famous examples of such circumstances include the United States versus Dann case as well as the fact between Oliphant and Squamish. In the discussion below, the cases involving United States versus Dann as well as Oliphant versus Squamish are illustrated to a profound extent in consideration of their impacts to the tribal sovereignty.

The cases are inquisitive and leave endless questions to the civilians mind as they wondered whether their civil rights were being considered during the acts of jurisdiction. What were the primary principles delivered form these vocational cases? Are the instances determined against the Indians or are they put in place to undermine the racial supremacy? The circumstances of United States versus Dann, as well as that of Oliphant versus Squamish, effectively signifies the urge of looking sovereignty issues into a closer perception (Leeds, & Shirl 2014). The Dann versus United States case involved two Western Shoshone Indians, Marry and Carrie Dann who offended the Taylor Grazing Act reaction to the illegal activity, the United States supremacy significantly implemented punishment to the defiant regarding the operation of grazing on the prohibited public land. To defend themselves against the law action, Dann claimed that their tribe owned the area that was under disputes as they held the original title. The opposition side where the States government belonged stated that the Western Shoshone’s claim of keeping the lands had been conclusively obliterated before the Indians Claims Commission with immediate effects.

Regarding the Dann’s advocacy, they claimed that the fair reimbursement of the lands had not been done even if the legal hearings approved them in favor of the Indian tribe. Under the Indians Claims Act, the state court suggested that the compensation would capably have affected the Eastern Nevada land title with twelve million acres. Also, the other lands on which the reimbursement was made to the Indians Claims Commission Act could also be meaningfully affected. The Dann’s decision was distinct and specific proposing that the Indians were in the opposition of preserving their title through the jurisdiction (Fletcher, 2017). They reinforced this by demanding that the enclosure of the Indian lands in the Tylor Grazing district does not close down the title. A separate commission was produced to settle down the disagreements by exchanging a peace treaty with the Indians. Five different agreements in total were signed related to the case, but only the Treaty of Ruby Valley is directly applied in the Dann’s case.

During the federal court legal proceedings, the jurors stated that the original title marked the end of the Indians Claims Commission’s actions as well as also legally allowed the government to take over the lands. After appealing, the court of Claims stated that title to the ambiguous areas had not yet been queried, noting that the Indians Claims Commission were dealt with on a specified taking date. Back at the prison; the state court authorized Dann from additional intervention. The underprivileged of the government reimbursements for the Indians’ trespasses that paved the way for the approval of the claims award. Has the title been kept adequately till the date of sentence and if so did Dann have a share of the land in that title? That was the involving question that would have been put in consideration during the case judgment. The determination of these matters would have eventually suggested the legal owner of the twelve million acres of the Eastern Nevada land.

The other case that led to high tension in that Indian reservations to the extent of prohibiting non-Indians in their lands involves Oliphant and Squamish. The action was as a result of the immoral conducts and their acts of not adhering to the national and Indian laws. The tribunal courts and other federal jurisdiction bodies have been denied the power of prosecuting the non-Indians who lived as well as visited the reservations. The non-Indian were omitted from the Suquamish tribal court’s authorities. The Oliphant case encompasses two non-Indians Daniel B. Belgarde and Mark David Oliphant, who was put in custody in the Indian reservations after committing several crimes. The Suquamish Indian’s Tribe Law and Order Code against non-Indians offenders were significantly imposed (McNeil 2017).

Oliphant was imprisoned and accused of assaulting a senior tribal officer and fighting back arrest during the yearly Suquamish festival. After the federal court proceedings, Oliphant was released on saying that he will be availing himself of all the necessary judicial actions and will not be affianced in any other misconduct as set by the court. The other supplicant Belgarde was detained after participation in high-speeding along the Indian lands highway and ended up crashing into a tribal guard car. The subject was released after posting bail to the tribal court. Afterward, judgment was pronounced on for recklessly driving jeopardizing another person’s life and obliteration of the tribe’s assets. After a while, he was brought before the court and charged under the tribal Code with irresponsibly jeopardizing another person and damaging tribal assets. Since then the Tribal court hearings against both Oliphant and Belgarde have remained undecided.

The two suitors applied a writ of habeas corpus suggesting that the federal court did not have the authority of jurisdiction over the non-Indians and other people visiting the Indian lands. After legal proceedings, the federal court was against the petitions and disagreed with the request arguments, hence denying their appeal. The Oliphant’s case rejection of habeas corpus was asserted by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the district court, but the Supreme Court held that Indian tribal courts did not have criminal Jurisdiction over Non-Indians. The Belgarde appeal remains pending as the issue remains uncertain. Even though the tribal courts detains the non-Indians for various offenses, they lack the power to impose jurisdiction to the defendants. The act of Indian tribal courts not having the mandate over no-Indians is a significant threat and back-draw to the country’s sovereignty.

In consideration of both discussed above cases, both were not judged in favor of the Indian community. Fundamental civil rights of the Indians were not put in the account during the jurisdiction of these cases. The act of the defiant committing misconduct against the nation’s law should have been taken more conveniently as they deserved to face the country’s jurisdiction regarding their ethnicity (Chambers, 2014). Allowing the non-Indians to go without legal judgment according to the law makes them prone to committing unlawful deeds and endangering the civilians’ well-being. Therefore, policies should be put in place to rectify the rules in such a way that it will be considerate of all people in the Native American reservations whether Indians and Non-Indians who stay in the lands or come to visit.

As discussed above, it is useful for the national and federal courts to put in place laws regarding the non-Indians in the reservations. It is recommendable that they have conveniently worked and enhanced that all the people involved in delinquency whether civilians or no-civilians are prosecuted and sentenced according to country’s law.

References

Chambers, R. P. (2014). Reflections on the Changes in Indian Law, Federal Indian Policies and Conditions on Indian Reservations since the Late 1960s. Ariz. St. LJ, 46, 729.Goldstein, L. F. (2017). The US Supreme Court and Racial Minorities: Two Centuries of Judicial Review on Trial. Edward Elgar Publishing.

McNeil, K. (2017). 19. Indigenous territorial rights in the common law. Comparative Property Law: Global Perspectives, 412.

Fletcher, M. L. (2017). Toward a New Era of American Indian Scholarship: An Introductory Essay for the American Indian Law Journal. American Indian Law Journal, 1(1), 1.

Leeds, S. L., & Shirl, E. S. (2014). Whose Sovereignty; Tribal Citizenship, Federal Indian Law, and Globalization. Ariz. St. LJ, 46, 89.