Punishment in Indian Country: Ironies of Federal Punishment of Native Americans
Abstract
Native Americans are US citizens, but they are also tribal nationals subject to complex and unique criminal jurisdiction arrangements over Indian lands. Tribal nations typically have tribal court jurisdiction over less serious crimes, but for serious crimes the federal justice system often supersedes tribal authority, exposing Native Americans to more severe punishments. In addition, recent federal programs have attempted to foster greater tribal/federal criminal justice coupling. Yet, examinations of criminal punishment of Native Americans are few, and most are outdated and/or of very limited generalizability. We examine the punishment of Native American defendants in federal court, focusing on 28 federal districts with substantial Indian presence. Using recent US Sentencing Commission data, as well as contextual data from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal courts, we focus on differences in the federal sentencing of Native American defendants, and how these differences are conditioned by indicators of tribal-federal criminal justice coupling.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
At the individual level, Native American defendants were moderately less likely to be imprisoned and received shorter sentences overall, but they were substantially less likely to get downward guideline departures of any kind compared to white defendants.
“At the individual level, Native American defendants were moderately less likely to be imprisoned and received shorter sentences overall, but they were substantially less likely to get downward guideline departures (that is, more lenient sentences than called for by guidelines) of any kind compared to white defendants.”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Ulmer & Bradley (2018)
Ulmer & Bradley (2018) examine how tribal-federal justice coupling affects the treatment of Native Americans in federal courts.
“Empirically investigating the concept of interlocking institutional power, Ulmer & Bradley (2018) examine how tribal-federal justice coupling affects the treatment of Native Americans in federal courts.”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Ulmer & Bradley (2018)
The district caseload share made up of Native American defendants was associated with greater odds for Native Americans being sent to federal prison and with modestly longer Native American prison sentences.
“Specifically, the district caseload share made up of Native American defendants was associated with greater odds for Native Americans being sent to federal prison and with modestly longer Native American prison sentences.”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Ulmer & Bradley (2018)
The federal sentencing of Native American defendants varied considerably between district courts in relation to measures of federal-tribal coupling.
“However, the federal sentencing of Native American defendants varied considerably between district courts in relation to measures of federal-tribal coupling.”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Ulmer & Bradley (2018)
Ulmer & Bradley (2018) found patterns of guideline departures for Native American defendants in relation to tribal-federal justice coupling.
“Ulmer & Bradley (2018) found just such patterns of guideline departures for Native American defendants in relation to tribal-federal justice coupling.”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Ulmer & Bradley (2018)
Measures of tribal-federal coupling (percent of district caseload made up of Native American defendants and federal PL 280 major crimes jurisdiction) were associated with greater odds of Native American defendants receiving substantial assistance and government-sponsored downward guideline departures.
“That is, measures of tribal-federal coupling (percent of district caseload made up of Native American defendants and federal PL 280 major crimes jurisdiction) were associated with greater odds of Native American defendants receiving substantial assistance and government-sponsored downward guideline departures.”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Ulmer & Bradley (2018)
Federal PL 280 Major Crimes jurisdiction and greater district TLO Act funding were associated with markedly longer prison sentences for Native Americans.
“In addition, federal PL 280 Major Crimes jurisdiction and greater district TLO Act funding were associated with markedly longer prison sentences for Native Americans.”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Ulmer & Bradley (2018)
One marker of greater federal-tribal coupling might also be comparatively greater use of substantial assistance departures and government-sponsored departures from the US Sentencing Guidelines for Native American defendants.
“Interestingly, one marker of greater federal-tribal coupling might also be comparatively greater use of substantial assistance departures and government-sponsored departures from the US Sentencing Guidelines for Native American defendants”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Ulmer & Bradley 2018
Cites
Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods.
Longford, N. T., Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2075823 · Cited by 18,768 · see citing works
Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods
Davidian, M. (2003) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/jasa.2003.s288 · Cited by 13,820 · see citing works
Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005) · Methodology · doi:10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86 · Cited by 3,582 · see citing works
STEFFENSMEIER, D., ULMER, J., & KRAMER, J. (1998) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x · Cited by 1,592 · see citing works
Self-citationProbing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques
Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_5 · Cited by 1,506 · see citing works
Bushway, S., Johnson, B., & Slocum, L. A. (2007) · Journal of Quantitative Criminology · doi:10.1007/s10940-007-9024-4 · Cited by 629 · see citing works
SENTENCING IN CONTEXT: A MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS
Ulmer, J. T., & Johnson, B. D. (2004) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00516.x · Cited by 594 · see citing works
Self-citationA Meta-Analysis of Race and Sentencing Research: Explaining the Inconsistencies
Mitchell, O. (2005) · Journal of Quantitative Criminology · doi:10.1007/s10940-005-7362-7 · Cited by 492 · see citing works
Recent Developments and New Directions in Sentencing Research
Ulmer, J. T. (2011) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.624115 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Self-citationTHE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF GUIDELINES CIRCUMVENTION: THE CASE OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS*
JOHNSON, B. D., ULMER, J. T., & KRAMER, J. H. (2008) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00125.x · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Self-citationULMER, J. T., & KRAMER, J. H. (1996) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01212.x · Cited by 273 · see citing works
Self-citationSavelsberg, J. J. (1992) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/229904 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
HAGAN, J. (1989) · Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0022427889026002002 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Russell-Brown, K. (2022) · New York University Press eBooks · doi:10.18574/nyu/9780814769249.003.0006 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Shermer, L. O., & Johnson, B. D. (2009) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418820902856972 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Difference, Disparity, and Race/Ethnic Bias in Federal Sentencing
Everett, R. S., & Wojtkiewicz, R. A. (2002) · Journal of Quantitative Criminology · doi:10.1023/a:1015258732676 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-6592 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
VARIATION IN TRIAL PENALTIES AMONG SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENSES*
Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S. (2006) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00059.x · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Juvenile Penalty: A Comparison of Juvenile and Young Adult Sentencing Outcomes in Criminal Court
KURLYCHEK, M. C., & JOHNSON, B. D. (2004) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00527.x · Cited by 156 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The formula for converting b-coefficients of logged sentence length to % difference is ((Exp (b)) − 1) * 100 for positive coefficients and −1((1/Exp(b)) − 1) * 100 for negative coefficients (see Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004).”
BackgroundSociological Perspectives on American Indians
Snipp, C. M. (1992) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.002031 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Sentencing guidelines: lessons from Pennsylvania
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-5891 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Fischman, J. B., & Schanzenbach, M. M. (2012) · Journal of Empirical Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2012.01266.x · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Weidner, R. R., Frase, R. S., & Schultz, J. S. (2005) · Crime & Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0011128704271467 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
U.S. ATTORNEYS AND SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE DEPARTURES: TESTING FOR INTERPROSECUTOR DISPARITY*
SPOHN, C., & FORNANGO, R. (2009) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00163.x · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Bell, B. A., Morgan, G. B., Kromrey, J. D., & Ferron, J. M. (2010) · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Ulmer, J. T., Painter‐Davis, N., & Tinik, L. A. (2014) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2014.958186 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Self-citationA comparison of juvenile court outcomes for Native Americans, African Americans, and whites
Leiber, M. J. (1994) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418829400092251 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Steinman, E. (2012) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/662708 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Starr, S. B., & Rehavi, M. M. (2013) · bepress Legal Repository · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Ulmer, J. T. (2005) · Symbolic Interaction · doi:10.1525/si.2005.28.2.255 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Self-citationUlmer, J. T., Light, M. T., & Kramer, J. H. (2011) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.553726 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Self-citationSentencing Guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania
Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T. (2008) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Self-citationAmerican Indians and sentencing disparity: An Arizona test
Alvarez, A., & Bachman, R. D. (1996) · Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1016/s0047-2352(96)00039-6 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Snipp, C. M. (1986) · The American Journal of Economics and Sociology · doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.1986.tb01915.x · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Sentencing Native Americans in US Federal Courts: An Examination of Disparity
Franklin, T. W. (2013) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.605072 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Anderson, A. L., & Spohn, C. (2009) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418820902936683 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Leiber, M. J., Johnson, J., Fox, K. C., & Lacks, R. D. (2007) · Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.07.001 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Nobody trusts them! Under- and over-policing Native American Communities
Perry, B. (2006) · Critical Criminology · doi:10.1007/s10612-006-9007-z · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Sentencing of Native Americans: A Multistage Analysis Under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines
Wilmot, K. A., & Delone, M. A. (2010) · Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice · doi:10.1080/15377938.2010.502821 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Defending the Homeland: Judicial Sentencing Practices for Federal Immigration Offenses
Hartley, R. D., & Tillyer, R. (2011) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.585140 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Jeffries, S., & Bond, C. E. W. (2012) · Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice · doi:10.1080/15377938.2012.700830 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
The Effects of Legal and Extralegal Factors on Detention Decisions in US District Courts
Reitler, A. K., Sullivan, C. J., & Frank, J. (2012) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2012.668925 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Marking Time: Does Race Make a Difference? A Study of Disparate Sentencing in South Dakota
Feimer, S., Pommersheim, F., & Wise, S. (1990) · Journal of Crime and Justice · doi:10.1080/0735648x.1990.9721404 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
The Federal/State Criminal Prosecution Nexus: A Case Study in Cooperation and Discretion
Miller, L. L., & Eisenstein, J. (2005) · Law & Social Inquiry · doi:10.1086/432446 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
The Evolution of Shareholder Voting Rights: Separation of Ownership and Consumption
Hansmann, H. B., & Pargendler, M. (2014) · bepress Legal Repository · Cited by 33 · see citing works
CONCEPTUALIZING LEGALLY RELEVANT FACTORS UNDER GUIDELINES: A REPLY TO ULMER
ENGEN, R. L., & GAINEY, R. R. (2000) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb01421.x · Cited by 31 · see citing works
American Indian Stereotyping, Resource Competition, and Status-based Prejudice
Rouse, L. P., & Hanson, J. R. (1991) · American Indian Culture and Research Journal · doi:10.17953/aicr.15.3.u34376346jj27v32 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
First Nations Peoples and Judicial Sentencing: Main Effects and the Impact of Contextual Variability
Lockwood, K., Hart, T. C., & Stewart, A. (2015) · The British Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1093/bjc/azv005 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
The Impact of “Strikes” in Sentencing Decisions: Punishment for Only Some Habitual Offenders
Rodriguez, N. (2003) · Criminal Justice Policy Review · doi:10.1177/0887403402250918 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Correcting Native American Sentencing Disparity Post-Booker
Droske, T. J. (2008) · Marquette law review · Cited by 16 · see citing works
(2005) · National Institute of Justice (U.S.) · Cited by 10 · see citing works
(1991) · South Dakota law review · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Tribal Control in Federal Sentencing
Tredeau, E. (2011) · bepress Legal Repository · doi:10.15779/z38wt4r · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T. (2008) · doi:10.1515/9781588269188
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Bell B. A., 2010, JSM Proceedings, Survey Research Methods Section, 4057
- Dobie K., 2011, Harper’s Magazine, 55
- Droske T. J., 2008, Marquette Law Review, 91, 723
- 10.1111/crim.2000.38.issue-4 · DOI
- 10.1111/jels.2012.9.issue-4 · DOI
- 10.1111/crim.2004.42.issue-2 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2005.tb01012.x · DOI
- Pommersheim F., 1991, South Dakota Law Review, 36, 239
- Snijders T., 1999, An introduction to basic and multilevel analysis
- 10.1111/ajes.1986.45.issue-2 · DOI
- Spohn C., 2000, Policies, Processes and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, 3
- 10.1111/crim.2009.47.issue-3 · DOI
- Starr S. B., 2013, Yale Law Journal, 123, 2
- 10.1111/crim.1998.36.issue-4 · DOI
- Tredeau E., 2011, California Law Review, 99, 1409
- 10.1111/crim.2006.44.issue-3 · DOI
- 10.1111/crim.2004.42.issue-1 · DOI
- 10.1111/crim.1996.34.issue-3 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda
Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S. (2019) · Annual Review of Criminology · doi:10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024805 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Self-citationTabbutt, K. (2025) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/soc4.70123 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
US Attorney Declination Rates of Tribal Cases: Resources Matter!
Branton, R. (2025) · The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics · doi:10.1017/rep.2025.34
- Authors
- Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ulmer, Jeffery T.
- Venue
- Justice Quarterly
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-06-29
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 751-781
- ISSN
- 0741-8825 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-9109
- OpenAlex
- W2727362908
- Semantic Scholar
- f685e34ce834609346de1515bc7a74ad6dad8f98
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 7
- FWCI
- 5.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Justice Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Law and Policy
- Keywords
- federal sentencing, tribal courts, Bureau of Indian Affairs, sentencing disparities
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
