Native villages, and the effects of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA), the Supreme Court found that the “recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States” language in the ISDA’s definition of “Indian Tribe” was not limited only to federally recognized tribes. Relying on the fact that the plain text of the ISDA included ANCs in its definition of “Indian tribe” and the fact that ANCs received special programs and services from the federal government through the ANCSA and other federal statutes, ANCs fit squarely within the ISDA’s definition of “Indian Tribe.” Accordingly, and for that reason, the Supreme Court held that ANCs are “Tribal governments” under the CARES Act and are eligible for Title V funding. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the dissent in this case. Because the term “recognition” has a unique and particular meaning in the field of Indian law, Gorsuch, joined by Justices Kagan and Thomas, reasoned that the “recognized as eligible” clause of the ISDA’s definition of “Indian Tribe” refers to some sort of formal government-to-government recognition that applies to federally recognized tribes. Therefore, the dissent would have found that ANCs were not “Indian Tribe[s]” under the ISDA, and thus were ineligible to receive funding as “Tribal government[s]” under Title V of the CARES Act. In the end, this case ensures ANCs access to the $500 million (now actually around $450 million) that was set aside after passage of the CARES Act. United States v. Cooley (June 1, 2021) —The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a victory to the Crow Tribe of Montana and Indian Country, in a unanimous 9-0 decision penned by Justice Stephen Breyer, holding that a tribal police officer has the authority to temporarily detain and search a non-Tribal member on a public highway that runs through an Indian reservation for potential violations of state or federal law. The case arose when an officer of the Crow Police Department noticed and approached a vehicle that was parked on the side of a highway running through the Crow Tribe’s reservation. After checking on the well-being of the driver, the officer noticed two semi-automatic rifles in the front seat of the truck and asked the driver to exit the vehicle. After calling for backup, the tribal officer conducted a search of the vehicle and found methamphetamine and paraphernalia, which he seized. The driver was then arrested by the tribal officer. After being indicted by a federal grand jury, the non-Indian driver sought to suppress the drug evidence seized by the tribal officer on the basis that the officer lacked authority to investigate non- apparent violations of state or federal law by a non-Indian on a public right-of-way crossing the reservation. While the federal District Court and Ninth Circuit granted the driver’s motion to suppress the evidence seized by the tribal officer, the Supreme Court disagreed and vacated the lower courts’ rulings. The Court began its analysis by restating the general rule that inherent Tribal Government sovereign powers do not extend to the activities of nonmembers. The Court then, relying on the 1981 Montana v. United States case, examined the exceptions to the general rule, including a Tribe’s retained inherent power to exercise civil authority over the on-reservation activity of non-Indians “when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe.” Finding that the “health or welfare” exception fit the facts of the case “almost like a glove,” the Court reasoned that to deny a tribal police officer the authority to search and reasonably detain a criminal suspect would make it difficult for tribes to protect the community against ongoing threats. This rare unanimous decision is being celebrated as a reaffirmation of Tribal governments’ inherent authority to protect the health and safety of all individuals residing in Indian country. New Hampshire Lottery Commission v. Rosen (January 20, 2021) —The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the Wire Act’s prohibitions are limited to interstate wagers on sporting events and does not cover non-sports wagers. Over the past two decades, DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) has issued conflicting interpretations of the scope of the Wire Act, which has led to great uncertainty regarding the legality of online wagers. The case arose after OLC issued a 2018 legal opinion, finding that the Wire Act prohibitions, save one, apply to all wagers transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce. At the time the 2018 opinion was issued, the New Hampshire Lottery Commission (“NHLC”) had an internet-based lottery service that required players be physically located in New Hampshire to play, however the “intermediate routing of data or
16
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs