United States v. Billy Jo Lara — Kennedy, J., Concurring

Summary

Kennedy concurs in the judgment, rejecting Lara’s double jeopardy claim by reading the Indian Civil Rights Act amendment as recognizing inherent tribal sovereignty rather than a federal delegation. He questions the constitutionality of extending inherent tribal jurisdiction over nonmember citizens and notes structural concerns for citizen consent. Justice Souter dissents, viewing the prosecution as a delegation that bars subsequent federal action. Justice Thomas and Stevens also write separately, Thomas calling for reexamination of tribal sovereignty cases.