USA v. Stately

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jennifer Marie Stately is charged with six counts related to murder, child abuse,
and arson. (Second Superseding Indictment, Nov. 4, 2025, Docket No. 79.) Stately moves
to dismiss the Indictment in its entirety. (Mot. Dismiss, Nov. 18, 2025, Docket No. 81.)
Stately challenges the Court’s jurisdiction, relying on Justice Gorsuch’s dissent from the
United States Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in Veneno v. United States. See
Veneno v. United States, No. 24-5191, 2025 WL 3131791 (2025) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting
from denial of certiorari); United States v. Veneno, 107 F.4th 1103 (10th Cir. 2024).
The petitioner in Veneno asked the Supreme Court to reconsider United States v.
Kagama, a decision which upheld the validity of the Major Crimes Act and helped
establish “the theory that the federal government enjoys ‘plenary power’ over the
internal affairs of Native American Tribes.” 	Veneno, 2025 WL 3131791 at *1. 	The
Supreme Court declined to take up Veneno, but Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice
Thomas, dissented, stating that he would have granted review. Justice Gorsuch criticized
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JENNIFER MARIE STATELY,
Defendant.
Criminal No. 24-118 (JRT/LIB)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS
CASE 0:24-cr-00118-JRT-LIB Doc. 92 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 2

-2-
the “plenary power theory” as “lack[ing] any basis in the Constitution,” and stressed that
whether the day for the Supreme Court to reconsider Kagama “comes sooner or later, it
must come.” 	Id. at *3. 	Stately asserts that this Court’s jurisdiction over her case “is
premised on that now questioned plenary power,” and seeks dismissal under the
reasoning advanced by Justice Gorsuch. (Mot. Dismiss at 1–2.)
The Court will deny Stately’s motion. Justice Gorsuch’s dissent from the denial of
certiorari does nothing to invalidate controlling Supreme Court jurisprudence relating to
the jurisdiction of federal courts over criminal cases arising on tribal land. 	As the
Government states in its opposition memorandum, this Court’s jurisdiction over this case
is proper under 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Stately’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 81] is DENIED.
DATED: January 9, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:24-cr-00118-JRT-LIB Doc. 92 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 2