United States v. Lara
Lara, who is not a member of the Spring Lake Nation, assaulted an officer of the Bureau of Indian Affairs during an arrest for public intoxication on the Spirit Lake Nation Reservation. After Lara was convicted and sentenced by a tribal court, the federal government indicted him for assault on a federal officer. Lara moved to dismiss the indictment for double jeopardy. The district court denied the motion and Lara entered a conditional plea of guilty. A panel of the court of appeals affirmed the district court. The en banc court of appeals reversed, holding that the second prosecution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because the Spring Lake Nation can prosecute Lara, a non-member, only because Congress has delegated such authority to it under the Indian Civil Rights Act. Thus, in the case against Lara, both authorities had the same ultimate source of power (the federal government).
Question Presented:
Whether Section 1301 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, as amended, validly restored the Tribes' sovereign power to prosecute members of other Tribes (rather than delegates federal prosecutorial power to the Tribes), such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2003/univlar.html