Facebook Twitter Email
JUNE 27, 2000

On Monday, the Supreme Court in a 7-2 opinion upheld the requirement that law enforcement inform suspects of their Miranda rights, which include the right to remain silent and be represented by an attorney. Citing no reasonable reason to overturn decades of law enforcement practice, the Court upheld the landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision.

The Court also held that an Act of Congress cannot overturn one of their own decisions. In 1968, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control Act, which attempted to overrule the Miranda decision.

This holding could affect the arguments of Russell Means, should his challenge to the Navajo Nation ever reach the Supreme Court. Means, a member of the Oglala Lakota Tribe of Pine Ridge, South Dakota, is alleged to have threatened and committed battery on Navajo Nation land.

At the time of the alleged incident, Means was married to a member of the Navajo Nation. Since then, he has married another Navajo woman.

In 1999, John Trebon, Means' attorney, unsuccessfully argued before the Navajo Nation Supreme Court that Congress illegally overturned the Duro v. Reina decision by granting tribal courts criminal jurisdiction over all Indians, regardless of tribal affiliation. Trebon had argued and won the Duro case in 1990.

In Duro, the Court held that tribes only have inherent criminal jurisdiction over their own members. But in 1991, Congress implemented what is known as the "Duro fix," amending 25 USC Section 1301 to delegate criminal jurisdiction over non-member Indians to tribes.

Ignoring the Duro fix, Means v. Chinle Judicial District, the Navajo Nation Supreme Court held that the 1868 Treaty with the US recognizes their jurisdiction over Means, due to his status as a hadane or in-law. Their decision cited exceptions noted both in the earlier Oliphant v. Suquamish (1978) decision and Duro, which reserve the right for treaties and Acts of Congress to be considered delegations of criminal jurisdiction.

On Monday, the Supreme Court also let stand a California ruling that allows officers to be sued if they continue to question suspects after they invoke their right to remain silent. That ruling might allow a deaf Indian man to sue law enforcement in Wisconsin.

In May, the Miranda rights of George Hindsley were upheld by the 4th District Court of Appeals in Madison, Wisconsin. In Wisconsin v. Hindsley, the court ruled he had not been been adequately informed of his rights, which were read to him aloud, and therefore did not waive them.

But the state of Wisconsin had alleged he waived his rights and he was further questioned through a court interpreter. He later challenged statements he made to law enforcement, giving rise to the May ruling.

On Monday, Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented the majority ruling. Scalia said the majority was being anti-democratic.

The case is Dickerson v. United States.

Get the Decision:
Syllabus | Opinion | Dissent

Only on Indianz.Com:
The Navajo Nation and Russell Means (December 1999)
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe 435 US 191 (1978)
Duro v. Reina 495 US 767 (1991)

Relevant Links:
The Supreme Court of the United States: www.supremecourtus.gov
State of Wisconsin v. George W. Hindsley: No. 99-1374-CR