Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978)
E613634
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that held tribal courts lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, significantly limiting Native American sovereignty and self-governance in criminal matters.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe | 1 |
| Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T6724453 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) Context triple: [Native American sovereignty, historicallyArticulatedIn, Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978)]
-
A.
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States is a 1955 U.S. Supreme Court case that denied compensable property rights to an Alaska Native group by relying on the Doctrine of Discovery to limit Indigenous land claims.
-
B.
Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation
Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court denied the Oneida Indian Nation sovereign authority over reacquired ancestral lands, emphasizing equitable doctrines and long-standing non-Indian governance.
-
C.
United States v. Washington
United States v. Washington is a landmark federal court case that affirmed and clarified Pacific Northwest Native American tribes’ treaty fishing rights, significantly shaping U.S. Indian law and natural resource management.
-
D.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
International Shoe Co. v. Washington is a landmark 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern "minimum contacts" standard for determining when a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
-
E.
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal law preempts Arizona’s requirement that prospective voters provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering using the federal form.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) Target entity description: Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that held tribal courts lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, significantly limiting Native American sovereignty and self-governance in criminal matters.
-
A.
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States is a 1955 U.S. Supreme Court case that denied compensable property rights to an Alaska Native group by relying on the Doctrine of Discovery to limit Indigenous land claims.
-
B.
Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation
Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court denied the Oneida Indian Nation sovereign authority over reacquired ancestral lands, emphasizing equitable doctrines and long-standing non-Indian governance.
-
C.
United States v. Washington
United States v. Washington is a landmark federal court case that affirmed and clarified Pacific Northwest Native American tribes’ treaty fishing rights, significantly shaping U.S. Indian law and natural resource management.
-
D.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
International Shoe Co. v. Washington is a landmark 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern "minimum contacts" standard for determining when a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
-
E.
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal law preempts Arizona’s requirement that prospective voters provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering using the federal form.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
U.S. Supreme Court case
ⓘ
federal Indian law case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
criminal jurisdiction
ⓘ
federal Indian law ⓘ |
| arguedDate |
1977-10-04
ⓘ
1977-10-05 ⓘ |
| characterization | judicially created limitation on tribal sovereignty ⓘ |
| citation | 435 U.S. 191 ⓘ |
| constitutionalBasisDiscussed |
U.S. Constitution Article I
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
U.S. Constitution Article II NERFINISHED ⓘ U.S. Constitution Article III NERFINISHED ⓘ U.S. Constitution Article VI NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| courtTerm | 1977 Term ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1978-03-06 ⓘ |
| dissentingJustices |
Thurgood Marshall
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy | Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| geographicScope | Indian country in the United States ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
Criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians in Indian country rests with federal or state authorities unless Congress provides otherwise
ⓘ
Tribal courts lack inherent criminal jurisdiction to try and punish non-Indians ⓘ |
| impact |
contributed to jurisdictional gaps in Indian country criminal justice
ⓘ
limited tribal sovereignty in criminal matters involving non-Indians ⓘ restricted tribal courts’ authority over non-Indian defendants ⓘ |
| jurisdictionType | appellate ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
scope of inherent tribal sovereignty
ⓘ
tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians ⓘ |
| locationOfEvents | Port Madison Indian Reservation NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| majorityJustices |
Byron R. White
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED ⓘ John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Lewis F. Powell Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ Potter Stewart NERFINISHED ⓘ Warren E. Burger NERFINISHED ⓘ William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| page | 191 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Mark David Oliphant NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Duro v. Reina
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Montana v. United States NERFINISHED ⓘ United States v. Wheeler NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedLegislation |
Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | Suquamish Indian Tribe NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subsequentDevelopment | partially modified by congressional statutes restoring limited tribal criminal jurisdiction over some non-Indians ⓘ |
| tribeInvolved | Suquamish Tribe NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| volume | 435 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) Description of subject: Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that held tribal courts lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, significantly limiting Native American sovereignty and self-governance in criminal matters.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Native American sovereignty
→
historicallyArticulatedIn
→
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978)
ⓘ
United States federal Indian law and policy
→
shapedBy
→
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978)
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe