Duro v. Reina
Duro v. Reina is a significant legal case that arose in 1984 involving Albert Duro, a non-member of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Tribe, who shot and killed a young Indian within the boundaries of the tribe's reservation in Arizona. Initially charged with murder under federal law, Duro's charges were dismissed, leading to his arrest by tribal police for a misdemeanor. The case highlights the complexities of tribal jurisdiction, as Duro contested the tribal court's authority over him as a non-member. The legal proceedings culminated in a pivotal 1990 Supreme Court ruling, which determined that tribes do not have criminal jurisdiction over individuals who are not members of their tribe. This decision underscored the limitations of tribal sovereignty in criminal matters, reinforcing that tribes can only regulate their own members. The case emphasizes ongoing discussions about the jurisdictional powers of tribal courts and the rights of non-member Indians within Native American jurisdictions, reflecting broader themes of tribal sovereignty and the relationship between tribal and federal legal systems.
On this Page
Duro v. Reina
In 1984, while living on the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Reservation in Arizona, Albert Duro, an enrolled member of another tribe, shot and killed an Indian youth within reservation boundaries. Under the Major Crimes Act (1885 and amended), Duro was charged with murder, but eventually, federal charges were dismissed. Duro then was placed in the custody of the Pima-Maricopa police and was charged in tribal court with illegally firing a weapon on the reservation. Tribal courts’ powers are regulated by a federal statute that limits tribal criminal penalties to misdemeanors.
After the tribal court denied Duro’s motion to dismiss his case for lack of jurisdiction, he brought a petition before the federal court to dismiss. Duro’s case was accepted on the basis that the Pima-Maricopa tribe’s attempt to assert jurisdiction over a nonmember Indian would constitute discrimination based on race, a violation of equal protection guarantees of the American Indian Civil Rights Act (1968). Ultimately, in 1990, the US Supreme Court determined that Indian tribes lack jurisdiction over persons who are not tribal members. Therefore, the Pima-Maricopa tribe had no criminal jurisdiction over Duro, a nonmember. The Court’s decision set boundaries on the concept of tribal sovereignty in criminal cases and limited tribes to controlling internal relations among their own tribal members.
Bibliography
Cordiano, Benjamin J. “Unspoken Assumptions: Examining Tribal Jurisdiction over Nonmembers Nearly Two Decades after Duro v. Reina.” Connecticut Law Review 1 (2008): 265–303. Academic OneFile. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.
Gould, L. Scott. “The Congressional Response to Duro v. Reina: Compromising Sovereignty and the Constitution.” U.C. Davis Law Review 1 (1994): 53–163. Academic OneFile. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.
Skibine, Alex Tallchief. “Duro v. Reina and the Legislation That Overturned It: A Power Play of Constitutional Dimensions.” Southern California Law Review 2 (1993): 767–806. Academic OneFile. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.
Quinn Jr., William W. “Intertribal Integration: The Ethnological Argument in Duro v. Reina.” Ethnohistory 40.1 (1993): 34. 36 pp. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.
Trachman, Will. “Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction after U.S. v. Lara: Answering Constitutional Challenges to the Duro Fix.” California Law Review 93.3 (2005): 847–897. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.