Court rules against Navajo Nation member
By Jessica Gresko
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Native Americans prosecuted in certain tribal courts can also be prosecuted based on the same incident in federal court, which can result in longer sentences.
The 6-3 ruling is in keeping with an earlier ruling from the 1970s that said the same about a more widely used type of tribal court.
The case before the justices involved a Navajo Nation member, Merle Denezpi, accused of rape. He served nearly five months in jail after being charged with assault and battery in what is called a Court of Indian Offenses, a court that deals exclusively with alleged Native American offenders.
Under federal law Courts of Indian Offenses can only impose sentences of generally up to a year. Denezpi was later prosecuted in federal court and sentenced to 30 years in prison. He said the Constitution's "Double Jeopardy" clause should have barred the second prosecution.
But the justices disagreed.
"Denezpi's single act led to separate prosecutions for violations of a tribal ordinance and a federal statute. Because the Tribe and the Federal Government are distinct sovereigns, those" offenses are not the same, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for a majority of the court. "Denezpi's second prosecution therefore did not offend the Double Jeopardy Clause."
The Biden administration had argued for that result as had several states, which said barring federal prosecutions in similar cases could allow defendants to escape harsh sentences.
In a dissent, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the case involved the same "defendant, same crime, same prosecuting authority" and said the majority's reasoning was "at odds with the text and original meaning of the Constitution." The conservative Gorsuch was joined in dissent by two of the court's three liberal justices, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan.
The case before the justices involves a tribal court system that has become increasingly rare over the last century. Courts of Indian Offenses were created in the late 1800s during a period when the federal government's policy toward Native Americans was to encourage assimilation. Judges and generally prosecutors are appointed by federal officials.
Federal policy toward Native Americans shifted in the mid-1930s, however, to emphasize a greater respect for tribes' native ways. As part of that, the government has encouraged tribes to create their own tribal courts, and the number of Courts of Indian Offenses has steadily decreased. Today there are five regional Courts of Indian Offenses that serve 16 tribes in Colorado, Oklahoma, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. They are generally tribes with a small number of members or limited resources. Nationwide there are more than 570 federally recognized tribes.
The court said in 1978 that the Double Jeopardy clause did not bar the federal government from prosecuting a Native person in federal court after a tribal court prosecution, so the only question for the court this time was whether the rule should be different for Courts of Indian Offenses, which are sometimes called CFR courts because they have their basis in the Code of Federal Regulations.
In July 2017, Denezpi traveled with a female member of the Navajo Nation to Towaoc, Colorado, which is a part of the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. While there, Denezpi raped the woman.
Denezpi was first charged in a Court of Indian Offenses with assault and battery, among other things. He eventually agreed to a so-called Alford plea in the case, not admitting guilt but acknowledging that prosecutors had enough evidence that he would likely be convicted at trial. He was sentenced to time served, 140 days in jail. His prosecution in federal court followed.
A lawyer for Denezpi did not immediately return an email seeking comment following the decision.
The case is Merle Denezpi v. United States, 20-7622.
Justices rule against detained immigrants seeking release
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ruled against immigrants who are seeking their release from long periods of detention while they fight deportation orders.
In two cases decided Monday, the court said that the immigrants, who fear persecution if sent back to their native countries, have no right under a federal law to a bond hearing at which they could argue for their freedom no matter how long they are held.
The justices also ruled 6-3 to limit the immigrants ability to band together in court, an outcome that Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote "will leave many vulnerable noncitizens unable to protect their rights."
In recent years, the high court has taken an increasingly limited view of immigrants' access to the federal court system under immigration measures enacted in the 1990s and 2000s.
"For a while, it seemed like the court was going to push back a bit. In extreme cases, it would interpret a statute to allow for as much judicial review as possible,"said Nicole Hallet, director of the immigrants rights clinic at the University of Chicago law school. "Clearly now, the court is no longer willing to do that."
The immigrants who sued for a bond hearing are facing being detained for many months, even years, before their cases are resolved.
The court ruled in the cases of people from Mexico and El Salvador who persuaded Homeland Security officials that their fears are credible, entitling them to further review.
Their lawyers argued that they should have a hearing before an immigration judge to determine if they should be released. The main factors are whether people would pose a danger or are likely to flee if set free.
Sotomayor wrote the court's opinion in one case involving Antonio Arteaga-Martinez, who had previously been deported to Mexico. He was taken into custody four years ago, and won release while his case wound through the federal courts. His hearing on whether he can remain in the United States is scheduled for 2023.
But Sotomayor wrote that the provision of immigration law that applies to people like Arteaga-Martinez simply doesn't require the government to hold a bond hearing.
The court, however, left open the issue of the immigrants' ability to argue that the Constitution does not permit such indefinite detention without a hearing.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's opinion holding that federal judges can only rule in the case of the immigrants before them, not a class of similarly situated people.
Sotomayor dissented from that decision, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. She wrote that the ability to join together in a class was especially important for people who have no right to a lawyer and "are disproportionately unlikely to be familiar with the U.S. legal system or fluent in the English language."
The cases are Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 19-896, and Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 20-322.
