or the health or welfare of the tribe.” 450 U.S. at 566, 101 S.Ct. 1245. These interests are plainly implicated where, as here, a nonmember Indian engages in violent criminal activity within the boundaries of a tribe’s own reservation. Without question, the apprehension, prosecution and punishment of such an offender are essential attributes of tribal sovereignty and necessary, if not crucial, to protect the health and safety of tribal members. Indeed, a tribe’s authority to prosecute violent domestic crimes, committed by nonmember Indians against its own members while on the reservation, has always been an inherent facet of tribal self-government and an integral part of the tribe’s sovereign duty to “preserve and protect” its people and the homeland. See Enas, 255 F.3d at 66<U65, 675 (<HOLDING>); 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) (expanding the definition
holding that a nonmember who files a civil claim in an indian tribal court consents to tribal jurisdiction holding that a tribal housing authority established by tribal council pursuant to its powers of selfgovernment was a tribal agency rather than a separate corporate entity created by the tribe holding that indian tribes lack tribal jurisdiction over crimes committed by nonmember indians within the tribes reservation holding that a tribe had the inherent authority to prosecute a nonmember indian for assaulting a tribal member while on the reservation and that federal assault charges stemming from the same incident and filed after the nonmembers tribal assault conviction were based on a separate power source and therefore  did not violate the double jeopardy clause holding that the trial courts dismissal of the charges after jeopardy had attached based on the prosecution witnesses failure to appear was not an acquittal and therefore double jeopardy did not prevent the court from reconsidering its decision and reinstating the charges