Court upholds tribal police in traffic stop, search
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that tribal police officers can stop and search non-Indians on tribal lands for potential violations of state or federal law.
The justices unanimously reversed an appellate ruling in favor of a non-Native motorist who was charged with drug-related crimes after a tribal officer searched his pickup truck on a public road that crosses the Crow reservation in Montana.
The Supreme Court has previously held that tribal police have little authority over non-Indians, but Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court that allowing a temporary stop and detention — so that state or federal authorities can be called in — enhances public safety.
"To deny a tribal police officer authority to search and detain for a reasonable time any person he or she believes may commit or has committed a crime would make it difficult for tribes to protect themselves against ongoing threats," Breyer wrote.
The case involved a traffic stop in 2016 in which Officer James Saylor of the Crow Tribe Police Department came upon a pickup truck with its headlights on and motor running, parked on the shoulder of U.S. Route 212.
The driver, Joshua Cooley, had watery, bloodshot eyes, Saylor said. Cooley also had two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun in the pickup, as well as methamphetamine.
Saylor called for help from federal and county officers, who eventually arrested Cooley.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Cooley, saying that non-Indians can be detained only if evidence of a crime is "apparent" or "obvious."
The Justice Department appealed during the Trump administration and maintained its position after President Joe Biden took office.
Justices reject Johnson & Johnson appeal of $2B talc verdict
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is leaving in place a $2 billion verdict in favor of women who claim they developed ovarian cancer from using Johnson & Johnson talc products.
The justices did not comment Tuesday in rejecting Johnson & Johnson's appeal. The company argued that it was not treated fairly in facing one trial involving 22 cancer sufferers who came from 12 states and different backgrounds.
A Missouri jury initially awarded the women $4.7 billion, but a state appeals court dropped two women from the suit and reduced the award to $2 billion. The jury found that the company's talc products contain asbestos and asbestos-laced talc can cause ovarian cancer. The company disputes both points.
Johnson & Johnson, which is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, has stopped selling its iconic talc-based Johnson's Baby Powder in the U.S. and Canada, though it remains on the market elsewhere.
But the company faces thousands of lawsuits from women who claim asbestos in the powder caused their cancer. Talc is a mineral similar in structure to asbestos, which is known to cause cancer, and they are sometimes obtained from the same mines. The cosmetics industry in 1976 agreed to make sure its talc products do not contain detectable amounts of asbestos.
The lead attorney for the women during the trial, Mark Lanier, praised the court's refusal to hear Johnson & Johnson's appeal. "This decision sends a clear message to the rich and powerful: You will be held to account when you cause grievous harm under our system of equal justice under law," Lanier said.
Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh took no part in the court's action. Alito owns $15,000 to $50,000 in Johnson & Johnson stock. Kavanaugh's father headed the trade association that lobbied against labeling talc a carcinogen and including a warning label on talc products.
Ethicists contacted by The Associated Press said they did not think E. Edward Kavanaugh's role required his son to step aside from the case.
