skip to main content

Federal jurisdiction and procedure: federal Indian law - criminal law - tribal sovereignty - 'United States v. Cooley'

Harvard law review, 2021-11, Vol.135 (1), p.411-420 [Periódico revisado por pares]

Harvard Law Review Association

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    Federal jurisdiction and procedure: federal Indian law - criminal law - tribal sovereignty - 'United States v. Cooley'
  • Assuntos: Case notes ; Criminal jurisdiction ; Criminal law ; Federally recognized Indian tribes ; Indian reservations ; Jurisdiction ; Right of way ; Sovereignty ; Tribal sovereignty
  • É parte de: Harvard law review, 2021-11, Vol.135 (1), p.411-420
  • Notas: HARVARD LAW REVIEW, Vol. 135, No. 1, Nov 2021, 411-420
    Informit, Melbourne (Vic)
  • Descrição: For over two centuries, Indian tribes have been relegated to a tenuous position within the American constitutional system. As the Supreme Court has attempted to give shape to Chief Justice Marshall's description of tribes as "domestic dependent nations," tribes have had to navigate jurisdictional pitfalls that states, by comparison, are never required to traverse. This hurdle is perhaps most evident with respect to tribes' ability to regulate nonmembers, where the Court's complex precedent has created significant challenges. Last Term, in United States v. Cooley, the Supreme Court held that tribal police officers can conduct limited investigatory stops of non-Indians traveling on public rights-of-way within reservations. In doing so, the Court secured the ability of tribal police to protect their communities without being burdened by another jurisdictional restriction. More broadly, Cooley's functionalist approach may support greater assertions of tribal authority over nonmembers in other important areas, though the precise implications of the Court's decision were left unclear.
  • Editor: Harvard Law Review Association
  • Idioma: Inglês

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.