United States v. Wheeler
435 U.S. 313 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not bar the federal prosecution of a member of a Native American tribe who has already been prosecuted by the tribal court for a lesser included offense, because Indian tribes are distinct sovereigns separate from the federal government.
Facts:
- Anthony Robert Wheeler, a member of the Navajo Tribe, was arrested by a tribal police officer on the Navajo Indian Reservation on October 16, 1974.
- The arrest stemmed from an incident involving a 15-year-old Navajo girl.
- On October 18, 1974, Wheeler pleaded guilty in the Navajo Tribal Court to disorderly conduct and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
- The tribal court sentenced Wheeler to 15 days in jail or a $30 fine for the first charge, and 60 days in jail or a $120 fine for the second charge.
Procedural Posture:
- More than a year after Wheeler's tribal conviction, a federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona returned an indictment charging him with statutory rape under the Major Crimes Act.
- Wheeler filed a motion in the U.S. District Court (trial court) to dismiss the indictment, arguing it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the indictment.
- The United States (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (appellee Wheeler) affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The United States (petitioner) sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bar the federal prosecution of a member of a Native American tribe who has already been convicted in a tribal court for a lesser included offense arising from the same act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
No, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the federal prosecution. Because Indian tribes and the federal government are separate sovereigns, successive prosecutions by each do not constitute being put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. The 'dual sovereignty' doctrine permits prosecution by both a state and the federal government for the same act, and the same principle applies here. The determinative factor is the source of the power to prosecute. A city's power derives from the state, and a territory's power derives from the federal government, so they are the same sovereign for double jeopardy purposes. In contrast, an Indian tribe's power to punish its own members is an element of its inherent, pre-existing sovereignty that was never extinguished by treaty or statute. It is not a power delegated by the federal government. Therefore, when a tribal court prosecutes a tribal member, it acts as an independent sovereign, and a subsequent federal prosecution for the same act is not barred.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes that Native American tribes are treated as separate sovereigns under the 'dual sovereignty' doctrine for the purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. By focusing on the 'ultimate source' of prosecutorial power, the Court clarified that tribal authority is inherent and retained, not delegated by Congress. This ruling has significant consequences for criminal jurisdiction in Indian country, allowing for parallel tribal and federal prosecutions for the same underlying conduct. It reinforces the unique legal status of tribes within the U.S. constitutional framework while potentially subjecting individuals to multiple trials and punishments for a single act.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Wheeler