{"id":1369,"date":"2009-02-11T16:23:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-11T16:23:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/"},"modified":"2014-10-08T20:52:37","modified_gmt":"2014-10-08T20:52:37","slug":"new-9th-circuit-opinion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/","title":{"rendered":"New 9th Circuit opinion"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Reinhardt and a dissent by Chief Judge Kozinski, held that a Blackfeet descendant was not an Indian for the purposes of criminal prosecution under the Major Crimes Act.  The Court found that Cruz, a Blakfeet and a Canadian Blood Indian, did not meet the second prong of its test set forth in U.S. v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005).  The four factors under the second prong include:  1) tribal enrollmnent; 2) government recognition through receipt of benefits reserved to Indians; 3) enjoyment of benefits due to tribal affiliation; and 4) social recognition. Although Cruz is a descendant of a Blackfeet, Cruz is not an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe and did not take advantage of any benefits reserved for Indians.  Although Cruz lived on the reservation for a short time as a child, attended public school on the reservation and worked on the reservation, the Court did not find that these facts could satisfy any of the four factors under Bruce&#8217;s second prong. <\/p>\n<p>The decision can be found at:  <a title=\"http:\/\/www.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2009\/02\/10\/0730384.pdf\" href=\"http:\/\/www.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2009\/02\/10\/0730384.pdf\">http:\/\/www.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2009\/02\/10\/0730384.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Reinhardt and a dissent by Chief Judge Kozinski, held that a Blackfeet descendant was not an Indian for the purposes of criminal prosecution under the Major Crimes Act. The Court found that &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases-of-interest"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v23.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>New 9th Circuit opinion - Indian Legal Program<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New 9th Circuit opinion - Indian Legal Program\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Reinhardt and a dissent by Chief Judge Kozinski, held that a Blackfeet descendant was not an Indian for the purposes of criminal prosecution under the Major Crimes Act. The Court found that &hellip; Continue reading &rarr;\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Indian Legal Program\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-11T16:23:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-08T20:52:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/9\/files\/sites\/2\/2022\/09\/ILP-social-share_blog2022-2.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Indian Legal Program\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Indian Legal Program\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/\",\"name\":\"New 9th Circuit opinion - Indian Legal Program\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-11T16:23:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-08T20:52:37+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/#\/schema\/person\/991d8d92155ced65f56f1f0b01f8ef7b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New 9th Circuit opinion\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/\",\"name\":\"Indian Legal Program\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/#\/schema\/person\/991d8d92155ced65f56f1f0b01f8ef7b\",\"name\":\"Indian Legal Program\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9ab32cb570c41b14f546d2501c43029d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9ab32cb570c41b14f546d2501c43029d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Indian Legal Program\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/law.asu.edu\/ilp\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/author\/asuilp\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"New 9th Circuit opinion - Indian Legal Program","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New 9th Circuit opinion - Indian Legal Program","og_description":"The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Reinhardt and a dissent by Chief Judge Kozinski, held that a Blackfeet descendant was not an Indian for the purposes of criminal prosecution under the Major Crimes Act. The Court found that &hellip; Continue reading &rarr;","og_url":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/","og_site_name":"Indian Legal Program","article_published_time":"2009-02-11T16:23:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-08T20:52:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":800,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/9\/files\/sites\/2\/2022\/09\/ILP-social-share_blog2022-2.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Indian Legal Program","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Indian Legal Program","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/","url":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/","name":"New 9th Circuit opinion - Indian Legal Program","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-11T16:23:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-08T20:52:37+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/#\/schema\/person\/991d8d92155ced65f56f1f0b01f8ef7b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/2009\/02\/11\/new-9th-circuit-opinion\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New 9th Circuit opinion"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/#website","url":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/","name":"Indian Legal Program","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/#\/schema\/person\/991d8d92155ced65f56f1f0b01f8ef7b","name":"Indian Legal Program","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9ab32cb570c41b14f546d2501c43029d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9ab32cb570c41b14f546d2501c43029d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Indian Legal Program"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/law.asu.edu\/ilp"],"url":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/author\/asuilp\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1369"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1369"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1369\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4023,"href":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1369\/revisions\/4023"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsletters.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ilp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}