United States v. Lara

541 U.S. 193, 124 S.Ct. 1628, 158 L.E.2d 420 (2004)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Lara

United States Supreme Court
541 U.S. 193, 124 S.Ct. 1628, 158 L.E.2d 420 (2004)

  • Written by Lauren Groth, JD
Play video

Facts

After the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), Congress passed legislation to allow Indian tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians, even those who were not members of their tribe. Lara (defendant), a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, was prosecuted by the Spirit Lake Tribe under this legislation. After Lara’s tribal conviction, Lara was also charged in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota with a federal crime for the same conduct. Lara contested the charges by arguing that a second conviction would violate the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause. In response, the United States took the position that the United States and Spirit Lake Tribe were separate sovereigns and that the Double Jeopardy Clause would not bar convictions by both sovereigns. Lara contended that the congressional amendment delegated federal authority, thus rendering the Double Jeopardy Clause applicable to the federal prosecution, while the United States argued that the amendment merely extended the Spirit Lake Tribe’s inherent tribal authority. The trial court agreed with the government, as did a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. However, on en banc review, the Eighth Circuit reversed and determined that Congress’s extension of tribal criminal jurisdiction was derived from federal authority rather than tribal authority and, therefore, a second conviction would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)

Concurrence (Thomas, J.)

Concurrence (Kennedy, J.)

Concurrence (Stevens, J.)

Dissent (Souter, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership