Federal Court Permanently Enjoins Muscogee Prosecution for Alleged Crimes on Fee Lands

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order:

Order Granting the Writ

The previous order is here, along with briefs.

2 thoughts on “Federal Court Permanently Enjoins Muscogee Prosecution for Alleged Crimes on Fee Lands”

  1. Bethany Berger September 12, 2011 / 10:57 am

    The court seems to mostly rely on the fact that US criminal law is territorial, and there’s no reason that principle shouldn’t apply to Indian tribes too. But even if that’s the case (which is disputed), the US and states surely have jurisdiction over crimes like this one that steal property from an entity within their jurisdiction, don’t they? If I, sitting at my computer in Michigan, conspire in a scheme to steal property from the Connecticut state government, is there any real argument that that Connecticut’s courts don’t have jurisdiction over me?

  2. Brent Leonhard September 12, 2011 / 5:01 pm

    This should just be a straight up analysis of personal criminal jurisdiction. States have the same issue when extraterritorial acts have detrimental effects inside the state. The test is the Strassheim v. Daily case (221 U.S. 280 at 285): “Acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a state in punishing the cause of the harm as if he had been present at the effect if the state should succeed in getting him within its power. Commonwealth v. Smith, 11 Allen, 243, 256, 259; Simpson v. State, 92 Ga. 41; American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, 213 U. S. 356; Commonwealth v. Macloon, 101 Mass. 1, 6, 18.”

    Settler v. Lameer, 507 F.2d 231 at 238, while not dealing with the detrimental effects analysis, is a federal Indian law case where a tribe asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction (albiet tied to treaty rights). So, there is clear federal legal prescident for tribes, in a very limited context, to exercise criminal jurisdiction over their own members even though the act occured outside of Indian country.

    I see no reason why a detrimental effects analysis should not apply to tribes, just like states. It is the same issue. Partcularly when the individual being prosecuted is a member of the tribe.

    I hope the tribe files a motion to reconsider.

Comments are closed.