bad men clause – Turtle Talk

Although this Court does not need to reach the merits of Wright’s claims, this Court has had cause, on a number of previous occasions, to address the misapprehension that Native American Indians are exempted from enforcement of criminal laws under that treaty. That misapprehension stems from a misinterpretation ofthe “bad men” clause of the treaty. The “bad men” clause provides that:

If bad men among the Indians shall commit a wrong or depredation upon the person or property of anyone, white, black, or Indian, subject to the authority of the United States, and at peace therewith, the Indians herein named solemnly agree that they will, upon proof made to their agent and notice by him, deliver up the wrong-doer to the United States, to be tried and punished according to its laws …

Art. I, paragraph 3, Treaty of Ft. Laramie of 1868. Wright does not specify what treaty rights he believes Defendants violated and does not plead any facts in support of his assertion that his “Indian rights” were violated.

The “bad men” clause does not exempt Native American Indians from being held responsible for violation offederal law. Congress, in passing the Major Crimes Act, “intended full implementation offederal criminal jurisdiction in those situations to which the Major Crimes Act extended” United States v. Jacobs, 638 F.3d 567, 569 (8th Cir. 2011). Wright’s misinterpretation ofthe “bad men” clause ofthe Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 is at odds with the Major Crimes Act. While Native Americans have good reason in a historical sense to question how the United States chose to honor or dishonor the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the “bad men” clause and the treaty itself does not render Wright a separate sovereign immune from prosecution for violation of federal criminal law.

Federal Circuit Decision Reopening Money Claims against US under “Bad Man” Clause of Treaty of Fort Laramie

April 16, 2012April 16, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Very interesting case to watch. Here are the materials:

CAFed Opinion

Richard Opening Brief

US Appellee Brief in Richard v US

Richard Reply

An excerpt:

The United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) held that a drunk driver who killed two Sioux men on a Sioux reservation was not a “bad man” within the meaning of the 1868 Laramie Treaty, and that in any event, the relevant provisions of the Treaty are no longer enforceable by its beneficiaries. Considering our textual analysis, and because we held in Tsosie v. United States, 825 F.2d 393, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1987), the “bad men” provisions (“‘bad men’ provisions”) of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 (“the Laramie Treaty”) are not limited to persons acting for or on behalf of the United States, and because the Claims Court’s textual analysis and its historical recitations are erroneous or incomplete, the Claims Court improperly dismissed Appellants’ Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

“Bad Men” Treaty Claim against U.S. re: Personal Injury Case Dismissed

April 7, 2011April 6, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Interesting argument, which in a nutshell is that the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie requires the United States to be responsible for “bad men” on the reservation, and therefore the federal government is liable for torts of bad white men on the reservation. The district court dismissed the action. Here are the materials in Richard v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

DCT Order Dismissing Richard Complaint

US Motion to Dismiss Richard Complaint

Richard Response Brief

USA Reply Brief — Richard

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this: