 Solicitor General Ted Olson argued that Congress , in response to the Duro decision , acted to " recognize and affirm " the Indian tribe 's inherent power to enforce its criminal laws against Indians of other tribes . Olson noted that the United States v. Wheeler decision clearly stated that a tribe could prosecute a tribal member for a crime and that the Federal government could subsequently prosecute for the same criminal acts without invoking double jeopardy if the actions of the accused violated Federal law . Olson noted that the legislative history of the Duro fix bill clearly indicated that Congress intended to restore , not delegate , authority to prosecute non @-@ member Indians by a tribe . The government argued that the limitation in Duro was a statutory limitation of the tribe 's sovereignty , not a constitutional limit , and that Congress had the authority to remove that limitation . He noted that a tribe 's sovereignty has allowed prosecution of non @-@ member Indians for centuries , until it was limited by Congress . The United States was supported by amicus briefs filed by the State of Washington and seven other states , the State of Idaho and five other states , the National Congress of American Indians , and eighteen Indian tribes . 
