The U.S. Supreme Court case Duro v. Reina, 1989, revolved around the issue of whether an Indian tribe has jurisdiction to try and punish a nonmember Indian for crimes committed on its reservation. The petitioner, Duro, was charged with illegal possession of firearms by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community in Arizona but argued that as a member of another tribe (the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians), he could not be tried under the laws of another sovereign entity (Salt River). The court ruled in favor of Duro stating that while tribes retain inherent sovereignty over their members and lands, they do not have criminal jurisdiction over nonmembers including Indians who are members of other tribes. This decision was based on principles such as respect for tribal self-governance balanced against individual rights protected by federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Duro v. Reina, Justice Brennan argued that Indian tribes should retain their inherent sovereignty to prosecute nonmember Indians. He disagreed with the majority's view that tribal courts lacked jurisdiction over crimes committed by nonmember Indians on reservation land, stating it was inconsistent with past court decisions and federal policy recognizing tribal self-governance rights. Brennan believed this decision undermined tribes' ability to maintain peace and order on their reservations, as they could not fully enforce laws against all who lived there or entered their lands. Furthermore, he expressed concern about creating a "jurisdictional vacuum," where neither state nor federal authorities would have clear authority to intervene in certain criminal matters involving nonmember Indians on reservations.