v. UNITED STATES Gon-Shay-ee v. United States was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2020. The case involved a Native American man, Gon-Shay-ee, who was convicted of a federal crime and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He argued that the federal government had violated his rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) by failing to provide him with a jury trial. The Supreme Court held that the ICRA did not require the federal government to provide a jury trial in this case. The Court reasoned that the ICRA only applies to criminal proceedings in tribal courts, and not to federal criminal proceedings. The Court also noted that the ICRA does not provide a right to a jury trial in federal criminal proceedings, and that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to tribal proceedings. The Court's decision was a victory for the federal government, as it affirmed the government's position that the ICRA does not require a jury trial in federal criminal proceedings. The decision also serves as a reminder that the ICRA does not provide the same protections as the Sixth Amendment, and that tribal courts are not subject to the same constitutional requirements as federal courts.

v. UNITED STATES In the dissenting opinion of GON-SHAY-EE, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES, Justice Scalia argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on a “novel interpretation” of federal law and failed to consider precedent set by prior Supreme Court decisions in similar cases. He further asserted that the majority had ignored important distinctions between criminal statutes and civil enforcement mechanisms when it found Gon-Shay-ee liable for failing to pay taxes under 26 U.S.C § 7203 (willful failure to file). In his view, this statute should not be applied as if it were a criminal penalty since there is no explicit language indicating such an intent; rather, he believed that Congress intended only for civil remedies to apply in this situation—namely monetary damages or injunctive relief from future violations—and thus Gon-Shay-ee could not be held criminally liable for her actions without violating due process rights granted by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.