Citation network
Duro Vs. Reina
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 29, 1990
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 676 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Duro v. ReinaSearch
-
U.S. 676 (1990) Duro v. ReinaSearch
-
based on race in violation of the equal protection guarantees of the Indian Civil Rights Act, since, under Oliphant v. SuquamishSearch
-
Appeals reversed. It held that the distinction drawn between a Tribe's members and nonmembers throughout United States v. WheelerSearch
-
members and nonmembers and its relation to self-governance is recognized in other areas of Indian law. See, e.g., Moe v. SalishSearch
-
Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
et seq. Under this Court's holding in Oliphant v. SuquamishSearch
-
and the dissent were later revised. 851 F.2d 1136 (1988). The Court of Appeals examined our opinion in United States v. WheelerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
held that tribal courts do not possess inherent criminal jurisdiction over persons not members of the tribe. Greywater v. JoshuaSearch
-
members on the reservation because this would interfere with internal governance and self-determination. See Moe v. SalishSearch
-
McClanahan v. ArizonaSearch
-
Washington v. ConfederatedSearch
-
Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U. S. 134 (1980). Similarly, in Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
courts, for example, resolve civil disputes involving nonmembers, including non-Indians. See, e.g., Santa Clara Pueblo v. MartinezSearch
-
Williams v. LeeSearch
-
of tribal authority is vital to the maintenance of tribal integrity and self-determination. See, e.g., Brendale v. ConfederatedSearch
-
United States v. RogersSearch
-
Duro v. Reina'sSearch
-
to legislate with respect to enrolled Indians as a class, whether to impose burdens or benefits. See United States v. AntelopeSearch
-
Cohen 334-335. It is significant that the Bill of Rights does not apply to Indian tribal governments. Talton v. MayesSearch
-
criminal proceedings before a tribunal that does not provide constitutional protections as a matter of right. Cf. Reid v. CovertSearch
-
of the authority to promulgate rules that may be enforced by criminal sanction in federal court, United States v. MazurieSearch
-
cases decided under provisions that predate the present federal jurisdictional statutes. We held in United States v. RogersSearch
-
Nofire v. UnitedSearch
-
left with broad freedom not enjoyed by any other governmental authority in this country. See, e.g., Santa Clara Pueblo v. MartinezSearch
-
the consent of the governed that provides a fundamental basis for power within our constitutional system. See Merrion v. JicarillaSearch
-
who share relevant jurisdictional characteristics of non-Indians, should share the same jurisdictional status. v. RespondentsSearch
-
would leave a practical, if not legal, void in reservation law enforcement. See Brief for Respondent in Oliphant v. SuquamishSearch
-
traditional and undisputed power to exclude persons whom they deem to be undesirable from tribal lands. See Brendale v. ConfederatedSearch
-
New Mexico v. MescaleroSearch
-
United States v. JohnSearch
-
over crimes committed by Indian tribe members is exclusive of tribal jurisdiction. See United States v. WheelerSearch
-
Ray v. MartinSearch
-
mentioned above. See United States v. WheelerSearch
-
though not identical, to those contained in the Bill of Rights, which does not apply to the tribes, see Talton v. MayesSearch
-
have no inherent power to enter into direct diplomatic or commercial relations with foreign nations. See Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
In addition, Indian tribes may not alienate freely the land they occupy to non-Indians. See Oneida Indian Nation v. CountySearch
-
Johnson v. McIntoshSearch
-
because they are necessarily inconsistent with the overriding interest of the greater sovereign. See Brendale v. ConfederatedSearch
-
Ante at 495 U. S. 685 . I disagree with the Court that Oliphant v. SuquamishSearch
-
in these statutes does not differentiate between members and nonmembers of a tribe. See United States v. KagamaSearch
-
See also United States v. RogersSearch
-
the jurisdiction of Indian tribes, therefore, is whether such jurisdiction is acceptable to Congress. Cf. Washington v. ConfederatedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial