v. UNITED STATES Captain Jack, Petitioner v. United States is a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2018. The case involved a Native American man, Captain Jack, who was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Captain Jack argued that the trial court had violated his rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) by failing to provide him with an interpreter during his trial. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had violated Captain Jack’s rights under the ICRA. The Court noted that the ICRA requires that a defendant be provided with an interpreter if he or she is unable to understand the proceedings due to a language barrier. The Court found that the trial court had failed to provide Captain Jack with an interpreter, and thus had violated his rights under the ICRA. The Court also held that the violation of Captain Jack’s rights was not harmless error. The Court noted that the lack of an interpreter had prevented Captain Jack from understanding the proceedings and had thus denied him the opportunity to present a defense. As a result, the Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

v. UNITED STATES In the dissenting opinion of Captain Jack, Petitioner v. United States, Justice Sotomayor argued that Congress had not given sufficient clarity in its definition of “Indian” to justify the conviction and sentence imposed on petitioner Captain Jack for violating a federal statute prohibiting non-Indians from possessing firearms within Indian Country. She noted that while Congress had used certain terms such as “blood quantum” and “tribal membership” to define who is an Indian under the law, it did not provide any guidance as to how these criteria should be applied or interpreted when determining whether someone was an Indian for purposes of this particular statute. As a result, she concluded that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner Captain Jack was indeed an Indian subject to the restrictions imposed by this federal statute; thus his conviction must be overturned and he should receive no punishment whatsoever for his alleged violation of this law.