Cases you should know about ...

This is the second entry in an occasional series, "Cases you should know about."

NAME: Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974)

FACTS: Non-Indian employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs claimed the employment preference for Indians in the BIA went against the Equal Employment Opportunities Act of 1972, therefore, depriving them of their full Fifth Amendment rights. A District Court agreed the preferential practice was repealed by the EEO, and the case was sent up to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

ISSUE: Did Congress intend for the preferential hiring practice of qualified Indians over non-Indians to work in the BIA to be repealed by the EEO Act?

RULE: No; the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed (and remanded) the decision reached by the District Court, to rule that Congress' preference is "reasonable and rationally designed to further Indian self-government."

RATIONALE: The Supreme Court referenced the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which called for Indian hiring preference at the BIA. Also, the EEO Act meant to end discrimination in "most" areas of federal employment — not "all." The Court also recognized Congress' longstanding policy of tribes building themselves up, toward self-sustainment. Furthermore, the Court cited the Education Amendments of 1972 — passed after the EEO Act — which also called for Indian hiring preference in schools, another signal that Congress did not intend for Indian hiring preference in the BIA to stop. Finally, in its opinion, the Court said the preference was not "racial," nor "racial discrimination."

Cases you should know about ...

This is the first entry in an occasional series, "Cases you should know about," that I'll be adding to my blog.

NAME: Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978)

FACTS: A non-Indian was arrested by tribal authorities and charged with multiple criminal counts. After his release, he petitioned the tribe did not have jurisdiction over him because he was not Indian. District Court and the Court of Appeals denied his petition, and the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The tribe operates by it's own Law and Order Code, extending criminal jurisdiction to non-Indians, and it assumed, as a "quasi-sovereign entity" of the United States, it had inherent power to rule in this case. Also, in some cases, tribes have had jurisdiction over non-Indians.

ISSUE: Do Indian tribal courts have inherent jurisdiction to try and punish non-Indians in criminal cases?

RULE: No; the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision reached by the District Court and Court of Appeals, to rule that Indian tribes do not have inherent jurisdiction to try and punish non-Indians.

RATIONALE: Because this was not yet a law, the Supreme Court looked for patterns indicating Congress' intent on the matter. It reviewed an instance where a tribe had authority to rule in non-Indian criminal cases (1830 Treaty with the Choctaw Indian Tribe), and even then, it was only able to with Congress' authority. It also reviewed a 1960 Senate Report that gave the federal government more weight than tribal courts. It also noted that many tribes modeled their courts after the Executive Branch and legislation passed by Congress. In short, the Supreme Court reached its decision because it sees the United States as having "overriding sovereignty," and thus, more weight to rule.