Summary
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas expressed their belief that the Supreme Court should revisit an 1886 decision, United States v. Kagama, which granted the federal government authority over internal affairs within Native American tribes. The Supreme Court decided not to review the case of Quentin Veneno, Jr., a member of the Jicarilla Apache Nation, who argued against federal jurisdiction in his conviction for domestic assault on tribal land. Gorsuch criticized the longstanding interpretation of federal power over Native American tribes as outdated and lacking constitutional basis.
Key Facts
- Justice Neil Gorsuch, with Justice Clarence Thomas, wants to change a decision from 1886 about federal power over Native American tribes.
- The case, United States v. Kagama, confirmed federal control over certain crimes on Native American lands.
- Gorsuch argues that this federal control is not based on the Constitution but on outdated ideas.
- The Supreme Court chose not to take up Quentin Veneno, Jr.'s case, which challenged federal jurisdiction over tribal matters.
- Veneno was convicted of domestic assault on his tribe's land, and his lawyer argued that federal authority should not apply.
- The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Veneno's argument, keeping the federal ruling in place.
- Gorsuch believes that if Kagama is overturned, tribes could fully exercise their own legal powers concerning major crimes.
