¹ Paul Spruhan is a 2000 graduate from the University of New Mexico School of Law and an associate at Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Enfield, LLP, Sante Fe, New Mexico.

² See Navajo Nation v. Means, No. CH-CR-2205/2207—97, slip op. at 1 (Chinle Dist. Ct. July 20, 1998).

³ See id.

⁴ 17 NNC §§ 310(a)(1), 316 (1995).

⁵ See Navajo Nation v. Means, No. CH-CR-2205/2207-97, slip. op. at 1.

⁶ See id. at 1—2.

⁷ See id.

⁸ 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) (1994).

⁹ See Navajo Nation v. Means, No. CH-CR-2205/2207—97, slip. op. at 1.

¹⁰ See generally DAVID GETCHES, CHARLES WILKINSON, AND ROBERT WILLIAMS, FEDERAL INDIAN LAW 485—88 (4th ed. 1998).

¹¹ See Means v. District Court of the Chinle Judicial District, 2 Navajo Appellate Rep. 528, 535—36, 26 ILR 6083, 6087-88, No. SC-CV-61-98 (Nav. Sup. Ct. 1999).

¹² Id. at 535, 26 ILR at 6087.

¹³ Id.

¹⁴ See e.g., Hinshaw v. Mahler, 42 F.3d 1178, 1179 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The Tribal Court’s interpretation of Tribal law is binding on this court.”); Nevada v. Hicks, 944 F.Supp. 1455, 1461 (D. Nev. 1996) (Federal courts defer on determinations of tribal law unless they “implicate substantial federal questions.”)(quotations added).

¹⁵ See WILLIAM C. CANBY, AMERICAN INDIAN LAW IN A NUTSHELL 168 (3rd ed. 1998).

¹⁶ See Seymour v. Superintendent of Washington State Penitentiary, 368 U.S. 351 (1962).

¹⁷ See CANBY, supra note 14, at 168.

¹⁸ 18 U.S.C. § 1152 (1994).

¹⁹ The Major Crimes Act was explicitly passed in response to the Supreme Court decision in Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883). There the Court held that a murder of Spotted Tail, a Sioux chief, by another Sioux Indian was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribe. The tribe imposed restitution, creating outrage among government officials who considered the punishment too lenient. See generally SIDNEY L. HARRING, CROW DOG’S CASE: AMERICAN INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY, TRIBAL LAW, AND UNITED STATES LAW IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 100—41 (1994).

²⁰ 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (1994).

²¹ Id.

²² 104 U.S. 621 (1881).

²³ 164 U.S. 240 (1896).

²⁴ 435 U.S. 191 (1978).

²⁵ 495 U.S. 676 (1990).

²⁶ Oliphant, 435 U.S. at 211.

²⁸ Duro, 495 U.S. at 688.

²⁷ Id. at 211.

²⁹ Id. at 693 (emphasis added).

³⁰ Id.

³¹ Id. at 694.

³² Id. at 693.

³³ Id.

³⁴ Duro, 495 U.S. at 693 (citing FELIX COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW 333—334 (1982 ed.)).

³⁵ 163 U.S. 376 (1896).

³⁶ 25 U.S.C. § 1302 (1994).

³⁷ Duro, 495 U.S. at 693.

³⁸ Id. at 693—94 (bolstering his argument Kennedy cited an earlier case involving military courts and a civilian wife: “Our cases suggest constitutional limitations even on the ability of Congress to subject American citizens to criminal proceedings before a tribunal that does not provide constitutional protections as a matter of right.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)).

³⁹ Duro, 495 U.S. at 694.

⁴⁰ See id.

⁴¹ 4 How. 567 (1846).

⁴² Id. at 569.

⁴³ Id. at 572.

⁴⁴ Id. (emphasis added).

⁴⁵ See Duro, 495 U.S. at 695—96.

⁴⁶ Duro v. Reina, 851 F.2d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 1988).

⁴⁷ Id.

⁴⁸ Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 695 (1990).

⁴⁹ Id.

⁵⁰ Id.

⁵¹ 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) (1994).

⁵² Id. § 1301(4).

⁵³ See Navajo Nation v. Means, No. CH-CR-2205/ 2207-97, slip op. at 1—2 (Chinle Dist. Ct. July 20, 1998).

⁵⁴ See Transcript of Navajo Nation v. Means Proceedings 32 (April 14, 1998) (on file with the Chinle District Court) [hereinafter Transcript].

⁵⁵ 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (holding Indian employment preference was a political not a racial classification).

⁵⁶ 430 U.S. 641 (1977) (holding Major Crimes Act applied a political and not a racial classification).

⁵⁷ See Transcript, supra note 53 at 33.

⁵⁸ See id. at 37—38. The Ninth Circuit has recently held that Congress indeed reaffirmed the inherent sovereignty of the tribe and did not delegate the authority to prosecute non-member Indians. See United States v. Enas, 204 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2000). The case concerned a double jeopardy claim that both the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the United State could not prosecute a non-member Indian for actions on the reservation. However, the question of whether the “Duro fix” violates the equal protection clause was not at issue in the case. As Russell Means’ federal case has been filed in Arizona, within the ninth circuit, it appears that portion of his argument has been answered.

⁵⁹ Treaty with the Navajo Indians, June 1, 1868, U.S.-Navajo, 15 Stat. 667.

⁶⁰ See Transcript, supra note 53 at 38.

⁶¹ See Navajo Nation v. Means, No. CH-CR-2205/ 2207-97 (Chinle Dist. Ct. July 20, 1998).

⁶² Id. at 2—5, 8.

⁶³ Id. at 6.

⁶⁴ Id.

⁶⁵ See Means v. District Court of the Chinle Judicial District, 2 Navajo Appellate Rep. 528, 535, 26 ILR 6083, 6087, No. SC-CV-61-98 (Nav. Sup. Ct. 1999).

⁶⁶ Id.

⁶⁷ Id.

⁶⁸ Id.

⁶⁹ Id.

⁷⁰ MARTHA A. AUSTIN, SAAD AHAAH SINIL: DUAL LANGUAGE (Martha A. Austin ed., Navajo Curriculum Center Press 1974).

⁷¹ Means v. District Court of the Chinle Judicial District, 2 Navajo Appellate Rep. at 535, 26 ILR at 6087.

⁷² Id.

⁷³ Id. at 534.

⁷⁴ 4 How. 567 (1846).

⁷⁵ 164 U.S. 657 (1897).

⁷⁶ 141 U.S. 107, 11 S. Ct. 885 (1891).

⁷⁷ Nofire, 164 U.S. at 657—58.

⁷⁸ See id.

⁷⁹ Treaty with the Cherokee Indians, July 19, 1866, U.S.-Cherokee, 14 Stat. 799, 803 (emphasis added).

⁸⁰ Nofire, 164 U.S. at 658.

⁸¹ See id.

⁸² See id.

⁸³ See id.

⁸⁴ See id.

⁸⁵ 162 U.S. 499 (1896).

⁸⁶ See id. at 501.

⁸⁷ See id.

⁸⁸ See id.

⁸⁹ See id.

⁹⁰ See id.

⁹¹ 1 NNC § 702 (1995).

⁹² See Transcript, supra note 53 at 23.

⁹³ See id.

⁹⁴ See id.

⁹⁵ Navajo L. Rep. Supp. 278, 280, 19 ILR 6049, 6050, No. A-CR-04-91 (Nav. Sup. Ct. 1991).

⁹⁶ See id.

⁹⁷ Navajo L. Rep. Supp. 429, 431 (Nav. Sup. Ct. 1996).

⁹⁸ See id.

⁹⁹ 1 N.N.C. § 701 (1995).

¹⁰⁰ See Dawes v. Yazzie_,_ 5 Nav. R. 161, 164—65, 5 Navajo L. Rep. 82, 84 (Nav. Sup. Ct. 1987).

¹⁰¹ 7 N.N.C. § 204(a)(2).

¹⁰² See id.

¹⁰³ See e.g., id.

¹⁰⁴ 435 U.S. 313 (1978).

¹⁰⁵ See id. at 322.

¹⁰⁶ 3 Nav. R. 72, 79—80, 3 Navajo L. Rep. 40, 45 ( Nav. Ct. App. 1982).

¹⁰⁷ Dawes v. Yazzie, 5 Nav. R. at 165, 5 Navajo L. Rep. at 84.

¹⁰⁸ See id. at 164, 5 Navajo L. Rep. at 83—84.

¹⁰⁹ Id. at 165, 5 Navajo L. Rep. at 84.

¹¹⁰ See id. at 165-66, 5 Navajo L. Rep. at 84.

¹¹¹ See id. at 167, 5 Navajo L. Rep. at 85—86.

¹¹² Dawes v. Yazzie, 5 Nav. R. at 167, 5 Navajo L. Rep. at 85.

¹¹³ See id.

¹¹⁴ See id.

¹¹⁵ See id.

¹¹⁶ Id.

¹¹⁷ 3 Nav. R. 72, 3 Navajo L. Rep. 40 (Nav. Ct. App. 1982).

¹¹⁸ See id. at 79, 3 Navajo L. Rep. at 45.

¹¹⁹ See id. at 79-81, 3 Navajo L. Rep. at 45—46.

¹²⁰ Id. at 81, 3 Navajo L. Rep. at 46.

¹²¹ Navajo L .Rep. Supp. 429, 431, No. SC-CR-07-95 (Nav. Sup. Ct. 1996).

¹²² See Means v. District Court of the Chinle Judicial District, 2 Navajo Appellate Rep. 528, 534, 26 ILR 6083, 6087, No. SC-CV-61-98 (Nav. Sup. Ct. 1999).

¹²³ See id. at 535, 26 ILR at 6087.

¹²⁴ See Transcript, supra note 53 at 6—7.

¹²⁵ See id. at 4-6, 23—24.

¹²⁶ 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-02 (1994).

¹²⁷ 1 N.N.C. §§ 1-9 (1995).

¹²⁸ See Transcript, supra note 53 at 25—27.

¹²⁹ See id. at 27.

¹³⁰ See id.

¹³¹ See id. at 25—26.

¹³² See Means v. Navajo Nation, Verified Writ for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Writ of Prohibition.

¹³³ See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 70 (1978).