United States v. Lara (2004)
E613636
United States v. Lara (2004) is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirmed Congress’s authority to recognize and expand the inherent sovereign powers of Native American tribes, particularly their power to prosecute certain nonmember Indians.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| United States v. Lara (2004) canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T6724455 — 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: United States v. Lara (2004) Context triple: [Native American sovereignty, historicallyArticulatedIn, United States v. Lara (2004)]
-
A.
United States v. Munoz-Flores
United States v. Munoz-Flores is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed whether a federal statute imposing monetary assessments on convicted offenders violated the Constitution’s Origination Clause.
-
B.
United States v. Leon
United States v. Leon is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases.
-
C.
United States v. Ryan
United States v. Ryan is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that formed part of the landmark 1883 Civil Rights Cases, which curtailed federal enforcement of civil rights protections against private discrimination.
-
D.
United States v. Eichman
United States v. Eichman is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a federal law banning flag desecration as unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
-
E.
Ocampo v. United States
Ocampo v. United States is a 1914 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied and developed the Insular Cases framework governing constitutional rights in unincorporated American territories.
- 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: United States v. Lara (2004) Target entity description: United States v. Lara (2004) is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirmed Congress’s authority to recognize and expand the inherent sovereign powers of Native American tribes, particularly their power to prosecute certain nonmember Indians.
-
A.
United States v. Munoz-Flores
United States v. Munoz-Flores is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed whether a federal statute imposing monetary assessments on convicted offenders violated the Constitution’s Origination Clause.
-
B.
United States v. Leon
United States v. Leon is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases.
-
C.
United States v. Ryan
United States v. Ryan is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that formed part of the landmark 1883 Civil Rights Cases, which curtailed federal enforcement of civil rights protections against private discrimination.
-
D.
United States v. Eichman
United States v. Eichman is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a federal law banning flag desecration as unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
-
E.
Ocampo v. United States
Ocampo v. United States is a 1914 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied and developed the Insular Cases framework governing constitutional rights in unincorporated American territories.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal law case ⓘ double jeopardy case ⓘ |
| affirms | Congress’s power to relax restrictions on tribal sovereignty previously imposed by the political branches or the Court ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ federal Indian law ⓘ |
| aroseFrom | Spirit Lake Tribe ⓘ |
| clarifies | tribes may exercise inherent criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians when Congress authorizes it ⓘ |
| concerns |
Congressional power over Indian affairs
ⓘ
Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment ⓘ tribal criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians ⓘ |
| distinguishesFrom | Duro v. Reina ⓘ |
| follows | Congress’s legislative response to Duro v. Reina ⓘ |
| hasArgumentDate | January 21, 2004 ⓘ |
| hasChiefJusticeAtDecision | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| hasCitation | 541 U.S. 193 ⓘ |
| hasConcurrenceBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ |
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| hasDecisionDate | April 19, 2004 ⓘ |
| hasDissentBy |
Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
David H. Souter ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ |
| hasDocketNumber | No. 03-107 ⓘ |
| hasMajorityOpinionBy | Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| hasPage | 193 ⓘ |
| hasPetitioner |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| hasReporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| hasRespondent | Billy Jo Lara ⓘ |
| hasVolume | 541 ⓘ |
| hasVote | 7–2 ⓘ |
| holds |
Congress has authority to recognize and expand the inherent sovereign powers of Indian tribes
ⓘ
linked to:
United States federal Indian law and policy
subsequent federal prosecution for the same conduct does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause ⓘ tribal prosecution of a nonmember Indian under restored inherent authority is an exercise of tribal, not federal, sovereignty ⓘ |
| impact | strengthened recognition of inherent tribal criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians ⓘ |
| interpretsStatute |
1990 amendments to the Indian Civil Rights Act
ⓘ
25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) ⓘ Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 ⓘ
linked to:
Indian Civil Rights Act
|
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| legalIssue | whether tribal and federal prosecutions of the same defendant for the same conduct constitute prosecutions by separate sovereigns ⓘ |
| modifiesEffectOf | Duro v. Reina ⓘ |
| relatesTo |
dual sovereignty doctrine
ⓘ
plenary power of Congress over Indian tribes ⓘ tribal sovereignty ⓘ |
| result | Eighth Circuit reversed ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | criminal assault on a federal officer on an Indian reservation ⓘ |
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: United States v. Lara (2004) Description of subject: United States v. Lara (2004) is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirmed Congress’s authority to recognize and expand the inherent sovereign powers of Native American tribes, particularly their power to prosecute certain nonmember Indians.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.