Facts
- Anthony Robert Wheeler, a member of the Navajo Tribe, was charged in Navajo Tribal Court for conduct involving a minor under tribal law.
- Wheeler pleaded guilty in tribal court and received a sentence imposed pursuant to the tribe’s criminal authority.
- A federal grand jury later indicted Wheeler for federal crimes based on essentially the same incident.
- Wheeler moved to dismiss the federal indictment, arguing that a second prosecution violated the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The federal district court dismissed the indictment, concluding the tribe and the United States were not separate sovereigns for double jeopardy purposes.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, treating tribal criminal authority as federally delegated rather than independent.
- The United States sought Supreme Court review to determine whether the federal prosecution could proceed after tribal prosecution.
Issues
- Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a federal prosecution of a tribal member when a tribal court has already prosecuted the same conduct under tribal law.
- Whether a tribe prosecutes under inherent tribal sovereignty (making it a separate sovereign) or under authority delegated by the United States (making it the same sovereign for double jeopardy purposes).
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and reinstated the federal indictment.
- The Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar the federal prosecution following the tribal prosecution.
- The Court concluded that the Navajo Tribe and the United States are separate sovereigns for double jeopardy purposes because their prosecutorial powers derive from different sources.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Legal Principles
- Double jeopardy prohibits successive prosecutions for the same offense by the same sovereign, but permits successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns.
- A tribe’s authority to punish its own members for violations of tribal law is an exercise of retained, inherent tribal sovereignty, not federal delegation.
- Tribal courts do not act as federal instrumentalities when enforcing tribal ordinances; they enforce tribal law under the tribe’s own sovereign authority.
- Congress has broad power over Indian affairs and may limit tribal authority, but absent congressional withdrawal, tribes retain internal criminal authority over members.
- Offenses are defined by the laws of the sovereign that enacts them; the same conduct may constitute distinct offenses when prosecuted under tribal law and federal law.
Conclusion
The Court held that a federal prosecution may follow a tribal prosecution for the same conduct without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause because tribes prosecute members under inherent sovereign authority distinct from the federal government’s power under the Constitution.