Latest news with #MajorCrimesAct
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Yahoo
McLaughlin man gets 4 1/2 years for weapon assault
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) — A McLaughlin, South Dakota, man was sentenced on May 19 to four and a half years in federal prison, after being convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon. Norman Ray Red Legs, 38, was sentenced to four years and five months in federal prison,followed by three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay a $100 special assessment to the Federal Crime Victims Fund, a news release from the U.S. Attorney's office said. In 2024, he was indicted by a federal grand jury in May, and pleaded guilty on September 30. In the early morning of March 11, 2024, a 46-year-old woman awoke to Red Legs punching her in the face. When she cried for him to stop, he struck her several times in the knees with a pot. He quit only when his girlfriend told him to stop. The woman sustained extensive bruising to her face, right arm, and legs. She was bound to a wheelchair for several weeks. The assault occurred at a mutual acquaintance's home in McLaughlin withinthe Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation. The crime was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office because the Major Crimes Act, a federalstatute, mandates that certain violent crimes alleged to have occurred in Indian country be prosecuted in federal court as opposed to State court. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: What happens when Washington runs amok? Ask a Native American
The word 'unprecedented' has become as much a definition of Donald Trump's persona as jury verdicts, broken marriages and red baseball caps. All of which leaves many wondering about our country, institutions and Constitution: What are the consequences when the federal government reaches beyond the limits placed upon it for nearly 250 years? What happens when the checks and balances that the people placed on the government atrophy? Where does that leave us; where does it leave the most vulnerable of us? Ask a Native American. Native Americans have been living uneasily under just such a regime of overreach for well over a century. Beginning in the 1880s (although its roots were in place much earlier) the Supreme Court developed the Plenary Power Doctrine in federal Indian law. Read more: Tribal leaders and researchers have mapped the ancient 'lost suburbs' of Los Angeles To understand the doctrine, and how it speaks to our current moment, it is necessary to reflect on the era of its birth. The late 19th and early 20th centuries were a time of rapid expansion for the United States. Native Americans, and their claims to land and sovereignty, stood in the way. In order to solve this 'Indian problem' Washington sought to destroy tribes and tribalism. It was an effort buoyed by moneyed interests who wanted to profit from tribal resources, and by religiously minded folks who wanted to 'save' Native peoples by radically altering their ways of life. Among other efforts, Native children were taken from their homes and shipped to boarding schools, tribal peoples were punished for engaging in cultural practices or even speaking their own languages, and tribal land and resources were appropriated and disrupted, resulting in devastating land loss and poverty. How did the federal government justify these exercises of power over a vulnerable population? Certainly not through any of the channels you might have learned about in a civics class. Rather, a combination of might-makes-right and a claim to its inherent superiority begat the Plenary Power Doctrine. A triumvirate of government, the wealthy and self-righteous Christians were not about to let anything as trifling as the rule of law or the Constitution get in the way of their goals. Read more: UC Native Americans demand action against scholars claiming Indigenous roots without proof The first major 'plenary power' Supreme Court case illustrates this point. In 1885 Congress passed the Major Crimes Act, legislation that purported to extend federal criminal jurisdiction over major crimes committed by one Native person against another on tribal lands. Recall that in 1885 there were only 38 states and tribal nations maintained significant, if dwindling, land holdings. Thus, the Major Crimes Act was akin to the U.S. passing a law asserting jurisdiction when, say, one Canadian citizen assaulted another Canadian citizen in Canada. In 1886, a case challenging the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act reached the Supreme Court: U.S. vs. Kagama. Government lawyers, with not much else to cling to, claimed that the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution — which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce 'with the Indian tribes' — provided the necessary justification for the Major Crimes Act, a criminal law statute. 'If they are permitted to murder each other,' the argument went,' it is certainly an interference with intercourse; because the number with whom intercourse will be held is thereby diminished.' Read more: The open question of 'who gets to be Native in America' The Supreme Court, in rejecting this reasoning, called the government's rationale a 'very strained construction' of the commerce clause. And yet, that was not the end of the case. The court in Kagama announced that the federal government actually did have the authority to pass the Major Crimes Act, despite the lack of constitutional authority. Why? 'These Indian tribes are wards of the nation…. From their very weakness and helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the federal government with them … there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power.' In short, the limitations on power imposed by the Constitution simply didn't matter because the federal government decided that it needed this authority. And what is the scope of plenary power? The government lawyers in their Kagama brief describe it this way: 'There is no limitation upon the power of Congress to enact whatever laws may be necessary to regulate the affairs of the Indian tribes.' Read more: California tribe enters first-of-its-kind agreement with the state to practice cultural burns The Plenary Power Doctrine remains in effect; it has even been judicially strengthened. In the 19th century, the Supreme Court justices at least admitted that the thin constitutional argument of the commerce clause didn't really apply. In our 21st century, the court has stated point blank that 'the Constitution grants Congress broad general powers to legislate in respect to Indian tribes, powers that we have consistently described as 'plenary and exclusive.' " Why isn't there more awareness of this virtually unlimited, now constitutionally sanctioned authority over Native America? Likely because plenary power is a double-edged sword, and for the last handful of decades it has been used more to benefit Native America than to harm it, resulting in things such as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance of 1975 and similar legislation. But if history is our guide, this can and will change. And in this particular moment, when a lot of things in the United States are changing for the worse, the state of federal Indian law offers a cautionary tale. One need not strain to hear the echoes of the past speak to us today. Native peoples know from experience that power without guardrails is coercion, and that it can reshape a people and their nation with devastating consequences. Not for the first time, an emboldened leadership, a small group of greedy brokers and religious zealots are putting to the test the United States' commitment to its foundational principles. What happened and is happening to Native Americans proves that the incongruent can quickly become irrefutable if these forces are not adequately resisted. Let's root out plenary power in Indian law and keep it from taking hold more broadly. Keith Richotte Jr., a citizen of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, is the director of the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program and a law professor at the University of Arizona. His latest book, 'The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told: Native America, the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution." If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
What happens when Washington runs amok? Ask a Native American
The word 'unprecedented' has become as much a definition of Donald Trump's persona as jury verdicts, broken marriages and red baseball caps. All of which leaves many wondering about our country, institutions and Constitution: What are the consequences when the federal government reaches beyond the limits placed upon it for nearly 250 years? What happens when the checks and balances that the people placed on the government atrophy? Where does that leave us; where does it leave the most vulnerable of us? Ask a Native American. Native Americans have been living uneasily under just such a regime of overreach for well over a century. Beginning in the 1880s (although its roots were in place much earlier) the Supreme Court developed the Plenary Power Doctrine in federal Indian law. To understand the doctrine, and how it speaks to our current moment, it is necessary to reflect on the era of its birth. The late 19th and early 20th centuries were a time of rapid expansion for the United States. Native Americans, and their claims to land and sovereignty, stood in the way. In order to solve this 'Indian problem' Washington sought to destroy tribes and tribalism. It was an effort buoyed by moneyed interests who wanted to profit from tribal resources, and by religiously minded folks who wanted to 'save' Native peoples by radically altering their ways of life. Among other efforts, Native children were taken from their homes and shipped to boarding schools, tribal peoples were punished for engaging in cultural practices or even speaking their own languages, and tribal land and resources were appropriated and disrupted, resulting in devastating land loss and poverty. How did the federal government justify these exercises of power over a vulnerable population? Certainly not through any of the channels you might have learned about in a civics class. Rather, a combination of might-makes-right and a claim to its inherent superiority begat the Plenary Power Doctrine. A triumvirate of government, the wealthy and self-righteous Christians were not about to let anything as trifling as the rule of law or the Constitution get in the way of their goals. The first major 'plenary power' Supreme Court case illustrates this point. In 1885 Congress passed the Major Crimes Act, legislation that purported to extend federal criminal jurisdiction over major crimes committed by one Native person against another on tribal lands. Recall that in 1885 there were only 38 states and tribal nations maintained significant, if dwindling, land holdings. Thus, the Major Crimes Act was akin to the U.S. passing a law asserting jurisdiction when, say, one Canadian citizen assaulted another Canadian citizen in Canada. In 1886, a case challenging the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act reached the Supreme Court: U.S. vs. Kagama. Government lawyers, with not much else to cling to, claimed that the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution — which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce 'with the Indian tribes' — provided the necessary justification for the Major Crimes Act, a criminal law statute. 'If they are permitted to murder each other,' the argument went,' it is certainly an interference with intercourse; because the number with whom intercourse will be held is thereby diminished.' The Supreme Court, in rejecting this reasoning, called the government's rationale a 'very strained construction' of the commerce clause. And yet, that was not the end of the case. The court in Kagama announced that the federal government actually did have the authority to pass the Major Crimes Act, despite the lack of constitutional authority. Why? 'These Indian tribes are wards of the nation…. From their very weakness and helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the federal government with them … there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power.' In short, the limitations on power imposed by the Constitution simply didn't matter because the federal government decided that it needed this authority. And what is the scope of plenary power? The government lawyers in their Kagama brief describe it this way: 'There is no limitation upon the power of Congress to enact whatever laws may be necessary to regulate the affairs of the Indian tribes.' The Plenary Power Doctrine remains in effect; it has even been judicially strengthened. In the 19th century, the Supreme Court justices at least admitted that the thin constitutional argument of the commerce clause didn't really apply. In our 21st century, the court has stated point blank that 'the Constitution grants Congress broad general powers to legislate in respect to Indian tribes, powers that we have consistently described as 'plenary and exclusive.' ' Why isn't there more awareness of this virtually unlimited, now constitutionally sanctioned authority over Native America? Likely because plenary power is a double-edged sword, and for the last handful of decades it has been used more to benefit Native America than to harm it, resulting in things such as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance of 1975 and similar legislation. But if history is our guide, this can and will change. And in this particular moment, when a lot of things in the United States are changing for the worse, the state of federal Indian law offers a cautionary tale. One need not strain to hear the echoes of the past speak to us today. Native peoples know from experience that power without guardrails is coercion, and that it can reshape a people and their nation with devastating consequences. Not for the first time, an emboldened leadership, a small group of greedy brokers and religious zealots are putting to the test the United States' commitment to its foundational principles. What happened and is happening to Native Americans proves that the incongruent can quickly become irrefutable if these forces are not adequately resisted. Let's root out plenary power in Indian law and keep it from taking hold more broadly. Keith Richotte Jr., a citizen of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, is the director of the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program and a law professor at the University of Arizona. His latest book, 'The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told: Native America, the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution.'
USA Today
18-03-2025
- USA Today
New Mexico man pleads guilty to bite attack resulting in amputation
New Mexico man pleads guilty to bite attack resulting in amputation Darold ZunieFeathers, 28, plead guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon of unusual choice — his mouth. The victim had to have a finger amputated because of the vicious attack. Show Caption Hide Caption Gene Hackman and wife Betsy Arakawa mourned in Santa Fe Gene Hackman and his wife Betsy Arakawa were living a quiet life in Santa Fe before their deaths. A New Mexico man faces potentially a decade in federal prison after pleading guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon that resulted in an amputation, officials announced Monday. His choice of weapon was unusual— not a knife or even an axe or a bat but his mouth. Darold ZunieFeathers, a member of the Zuni tribal area in New Mexico, viciously bit another man resulting in the victim needing to have one finger and part of another amputated, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The ferocious attack happened on the Pueblo of Zuni reservation when the pair were out on a late-night drive to buy cigarettes, according to court filings out of the District of New Mexico. Human bite attacks - though rare - can be exceptionally dangerous due to high risk of infection. 'The United States Attorney's Office is committed to prosecuting assaults committed with dangerous weapons in Indian Country, including assaults perpetrated through biting. While not traditionally thought of in this way, teeth can legally be considered dangerous weapons,' Holland S. Kastrin, acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico, told USA TODAY. 'In this case, where the biting assault resulted in an amputation and partial amputation, there can be no doubt about the harm that teeth can inflict.' ZunieFeathers, 28, and the victim - called John Doe in court filings - were hanging out with friends when they decided to go buy more cigarettes before the gas station closed, according to the guilty plea agreement. 'I drove, and then decided to turn down a side dirt road,' ZunieFeathers says of what happened leading up to the attack. 'I struck him repeatedly, and then I bit John Doe multiple times on the torso, arm and hand. The bites severely damaged John Doe's hand.' The attack happened on the Pueblo of Zuni reservation in McKinley County, New Mexico. It took place between Dec. 16 and 17, 2021, according to court filings. ZunieFeathers pleaded guilty Friday. Pueblo of Zuni sits 150 miles west of Albuquerque in the Zuni River valley bordering Arizona. It is home to the Zuni Tribe, an indigenous Pueblo people. The case landed in federal court under the Major Crimes Act, a law that specifies federal authorities have jurisdiction over certain crimes - including assault - committed by Native Americans in Native territory Court filings don't make clear what exactly sparked the assault. An attorney for Zuniefeather did not immediately respond to requests for comment. ZunieFeathers was previously sentenced in 2017 to two and a half years in prison for involuntary manslaughter after running a man over with his blue pickup truck, according to federal court filings. How common are human bite attacks? Human bite attacks are fairly unusual. Healthcare providers treat about 250,000 bites annually, which accounts for just 3% of all bites seen in emergency rooms, according to the Cleveland Clinic, a nonprofit academic medical center. Most bites happen between children. Bites among adults often happen indirectly during fist fights when someone gets hit in the mouth. Human teeth aren't very sharp so usually these only cause bruising, according to the Cleveland Clinic. The actual force of a human bite is quite weak. A human bite amounts to 162 psi, says the Cleveland Clinic. Some dogs on the other hand can reach up to 250 psi. A bear bite can be 1,000 psi. 'Even more dangerous than animal bites' Human bites remain dangerous for another reason— infection. The Mayo Clinic says human bites are 'as dangerous or even more dangerous than animal bites.' The sheer amount of bacteria and viruses lingering in the human mouth is what makes them so dangerous, according to the healthcare institution. Risk of infection from a human bite is so great that among children, one in ten who are bitten will develop an infection, the Cleveland Clinic says. Toddler bite results in amputation The potential dangers from a human bite are so great that even a toddler can leave someone with a life-changing injury. A 3-year-old child bit a 68-year-old man on the forearm leading to a gangrene infection, according to a 2021 study published in the Journal of International Medical Research. The man had to have his limb amputated within 24 hours. Photos of the infected arm included in the study show a chunk of skin missing from the 4-centimeter bite. The arm below the bite is black and swollen. Michael Loria is a national reporter on the USA TODAY breaking news desk. Contact him at mloria@ @mchael_mchael or on Signal at (202) 290-4585.
