Fay v. Chester: Tenth Circuit Rejects Pro Se Challenge to Constitutionality of Major Crimes Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is that unpublished opinion.

An excerpt:

Mr. Fay asserts that he “is a[n] enrolled member of the Sioux Tribe . . .and has maintained his Traditional standing in the Tribe with TraditionalMembers.”  Aplt. Opening Br. at 5a.  Construing his appellate brief liberally, Mr.Fay raises three grounds in support of his argument that the United States—morespecifically, the Commission—lacked jurisdiction over him because he is anAmerican Indian and the Sioux Nation is a sovereign: (1) the Major Crimes Act isunconstitutional; (2) the Sioux Nation did not relinquish its sovereignty under the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851; and (3) the Fourteenth Amendment recognizesAmerican Indian tribes as sovereigns.