<P> This United States Supreme Court case occurred when an American Indian shot and killed a non-Indian . The question arose of whether or not the United States Supreme Court had jurisdiction over this issue . In an effort to argue against the Supreme Court having jurisdiction over the proceedings, the defendant filed a petition seeking a writ of certiorari . This request for judicial review, upon writ of error, was denied . The court held that a conviction for murder, punishable with death, was no less a conviction for a capital crime by reason even taking into account the fact that the jury qualified the punishment . The American Indian defendant was sentenced to life in prison . </P> <P> This United States Supreme court case came about when the surviving partner of the firm of E. Montoya & Sons petitioned against the United States and the Mescalero Apache Indians for the value their livestock which was taken in March 1880 . It was believed that the livestock was taken by "Victorio's Band" which was a group of these American Indians . It was argued that the group of American Indians who had taken the livestock were distinct from any other American Indian tribal group, and therefore the Mescalero Apache American Indian tribe should not be held responsible for what had occurred . After the hearing, the Supreme Court held that the judgment made previously in the Court of Claims would not be changed . This is to say that the Mescalero Apache American Indian tribe would not be held accountable for the actions of Victorio's Band . This outcome demonstrates not only the sovereignty of American Indian tribes from the United States, but also their sovereignty from one another . One group of American Indians cannot be held accountable for the actions of another group of American Indians, even though they are all part of the American Indian nation . </P> <P> In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Yakama tribe, reaffirming their prerogative to fish and hunt on off - reservation land . Further, the case established two important principles regarding the interpretation of treaties . First, treaties would be interpreted in the way Indians would have understood them and "as justice and reason demand". Second, the Reserved Rights Doctrine was established which states that treaties are not rights granted to the Indians, but rather "a reservation by the Indians of rights already possessed and not granted away by them". These "reserved" rights, meaning never having been transferred to the United States or any other sovereign, include property rights, which include the rights to fish, hunt and gather, and political rights . Political rights reserved to the Indian nations include the power to regulate domestic relations, tax, administer justice, or exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction . </P> <P> The United States Supreme Court Case Winters v. United States was a case primarily dealing with water rights of American Indian reservations . This case clarified what water sources American Indian tribes had "implied" rights to put to use . This case dealt with the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation and their right to utilize the water source of the Milk River in Montana . The reservation had been created without clearly stating the explicit water rights that the Fort Belknap American Indian reservation had . This became a problem once non-Indian settlers began moving into the area and using the Milk River as a water source for their settlements . As water sources are extremely sparse and limited in Montana, this argument of who had the legal rights to use the water was presented . After the case was tried, the Supreme Court came to the decision that the Fort Belknap reservation had reserved water rights through the 1888 agreement which had created the American Indian Reservation in the first place . This case was very important in setting a precedent for cases after the assimilation era . It was used as a precedent for the cases Arizona v. California, Tulee v. Washington, Washington v. McCoy, Nevada v. United States, Cappaert v. United States, Colorado River Water Conservation Dist . v. United States, United States v. New Mexico, and Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona which all focused on the sovereignty of American Indian tribes . </P>

Some native american tribes assimilated the new american culture