Oliphant v. Suquamish

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case deciding that Indian tribal courts have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.

I've written about this previously on this site and on Witness to Destruction and referenced the stuff on the other site in posts here. TLDR:

This Supreme Court ruling established that Native American tribes are not allowed to enforce the law against non-natives on their lands. And in practice Federal and state governments do not PROACTIVELY handle these cases with an eye towards meaningfully protecting the tribespeople.

Please note this was likely defacto policy across the US prior to this court case and is a factor in the existence of this court case. The tribal ASKED both the county and Bureau of Indian Affairs for additional law enforcement during a big event and got almost no support.

When left to their own devices to handle the situation, they were informed after the fact they don't have authorization to do so.

Knowing that thousands of people would gather in a small area for the celebration, the tribe requested Kitsap County and the Bureau of Indian Affairs for additional law enforcement assistance. The county sent just one deputy, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs sent no one. When Oliphant was arrested, at 4:30 a.m., only tribal officers were on duty.

In effect, this is like if certain cities in the US were told that tourists are not subject to local law and local law enforcement can do nothing about it and fuck you because county, state and federal law enforcement can't be arsed to give a flying fuck about the welfare of your citizens. We're busy looking out for other people.

I'm guessing Mark Oliphant was probably White. And the picture of Judge Kennedy suggests he's White. And he's the guy who suggested lower courts were probably in the wrong for upholding tribal sovereignty. Under Procedural History:

Judge Anthony Kennedy, then a judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, dissented from the decision and said he found no support for the idea that only treaties and acts of Congress could take away the retained rights of tribes. He considered that doctrine of tribal sovereignty was not "analytically helpful" in resolving the issue.

A Wikipedia piece on Implicit Divestiture says:

the "colonial trilogy" of Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Montana v. United States, and Nevada v. Hicks undermined tribal sovereignty, through their introduction of "implicit divestiture." 

If you value law and order, this situation should concern you immensely because this is a clear policy backed up by law enforcement that non-natives have the right to be willfully abusive to Natives and Natives effectively have no recourse.

This country cannot be a civilized society when our laws explicitly state some citizens of the US inherently have superior rights and privileges to others and those rights and privileges boil down to a right to do any damn thing they want to certain people in certain places without any fear of meaningful consequences.