Misplaced Pages

#638361

48-589: The original law placed seven major crimes under federal jurisdiction (exclusive of state jurisdiction) if they were committed by a Native American in Native territory. Those crimes were: The text of the act is as follows: § 9. That immediately upon and after the date of the passage of this act, all Indians committing against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following crimes, namely, murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny, within any territory of

96-514: A trial court . The non-governmental party may raise claims or defenses relating to alleged constitutional violation(s) by the government. If the non-governmental party loses, the constitutional issue may form part of the appeal . Eventually, a petition for certiorari may be sent to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari and accepts the case, it will receive written briefs from each side (and any amici curiae or friends of

144-541: A "ward" and in a state of "pupilage". Miller, having dismissed the Indian Commerce Clause as a source of authority, did not cite another constitutional source of the power. In effect, this decision contended that the U.S. government had supreme authority to enforce laws within its borders, but did not mention where this power was outlined in the Constitution. From the time the crime occurred to

192-472: A home for other tribes within the region. The tribes living along the river had long-established rules for property rights and ownership, including how property was to be passed down from one generation to the next. In some cases, families owned lands that were located a substantial distance from their "home" village. In charge of the reservation was the Indian agent , Major Charles Porter, who by commanding

240-402: A policy of not prosecuting crimes between Indians. The U.S. Attorney for Northern California forcefully prosecuted the case. On October 18, 1885, both Kagama and Mahawaha were taken to San Francisco for trial, after having been indicted for murder. The indictment charged that the crime occurred on the reservation, even though it was later determined at the trial to have occurred outside

288-488: Is available when the plaintiff raises a claim that arises under the laws, treaties, or Constitution of the United States, as opposed to claims arising under state law. By the "Well-Pleaded Complaint" rule, federal question jurisdiction is not available if the federal issue arises only as a defense to a state-law claim. Diversity jurisdiction, on the other hand, is available regarding state-law claims if every plaintiff

336-416: Is from a different state from every defendant (the requirement for so-called complete or total diversity) and the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000. If a Federal Court has subject matter jurisdiction over one or more of the claims in a case, it has discretion to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over other state law claims. The Supreme Court has "cautioned that ... Court[s] must take great care to 'resist

384-527: Is important in criminal law because federal law does not supersede state criminal law. Congress has enacted the Assimilative Crimes Act ( 18 U.S.C.   § 13 ), which provides that any act that would have been a crime under the laws of the state in which a federal enclave is situated is also a federal crime. As most such enclaves are occupied by the military, military law is especially concerned with these enclaves, especially

432-492: The Constitution , Congress has power to legislate only in the areas that are delegated to it. Under clause 17 Article I Section 8 of the Constitution however, Congress has power to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the federal district ( Washington, D.C. ) and other territory ceded to the federal government by the states, such as for military installations. Federal jurisdiction in this sense

480-542: The Major Crimes Act , claiming exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government to prosecute Indians for seven major crimes anywhere in the nation, if the land is in Indian country, including Indian reservations. The seven original crimes included in the 1885 act (the list is now 15 crimes) were murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny. The Hoopa Valley Reservation

528-540: The President and Vice President , and having other territories and possessions in its national jurisdiction . This government is variously known as the Union, the United States, or the federal government . Under the Constitution and various treaties, the legal jurisdiction of the United States includes territories and territorial waters . One aspect of federal jurisdiction is the extent of legislative power. Under

SECTION 10

#1732771944639

576-552: The 'it-must-be-somewhere' doctrine ..." Kagama remains good law , being cited in support of the plenary power doctrine as recently as 2004 in United States v. Lara by the Supreme Court, and cited in 2015 by the 6th Circuit. Although one legal scholar, Matthew L.M. Fletcher, states that the apex of the doctrine was reached in 1955, in Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States , he also acknowledges that

624-737: The American Indian." In addition to the law professors, various other authors in law reviews have also been critical of the decision. Warren Stapleton, in the Arizona State University law journal, has stated that the decision was incorrect and that the Major Crimes Act is in fact unconstitutional. In a Comment, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review noted that "the Court promulgated what can be called

672-678: The American Indians as inferior people who would benefit from being assimilated into the Euro-American culture. The laws that followed the Kagama ruling were attempts to destroy the Native American cultural differences and force these tribes to share the Euro-American culture viewed by these lawmakers to be the superior culture. The decision has been widely criticized by legal scholars. David E. Wilkins noted that if

720-485: The American public and on its own merits. Redding argued that Congress could not assert power over sovereign people who, when making treaties to cede land, reserved certain rights to themselves. He did not raise the issue that the tribes already did have a system of law that dealt with crimes against another person. In a unanimous decision issued at the end of May 1886, and authored by Justice Samuel Freeman Miller ,

768-422: The Indian Commerce Clause or Taxation Clause did not contain the authority, and the tribes had not granted it by treaty or consent, then the Major Crimes Act would be unconstitutional and the Court should have declared it void. Phillip P. Frickey describes the Kagama decision as "a whirlwind of circular reasoning ", with the Court justifying congressional power due to the tribe's weakness, which it also noted

816-460: The Indian tribes, it ruled that the trust relationship between the federal government and the tribes conferred on Congress both the duty and the power to regulate tribal affairs. After the Major Crimes Act was passed, many tribes continued to prosecute Native Americans for major crimes, thus exercising jurisdiction concurrent with the federal courts. This practice was upheld by the Court of Appeals for

864-598: The Ninth Circuit in the 1995 case Wetsit v. Stafne . The Major Crimes Act was the focal point of the Supreme Court case McGirt v. Oklahoma , 591 U.S. ___ (2020), which found that nearly half of the state of Oklahoma had not been disestablished as a Native American reservation by Congress prior to Oklahoma's statehood and thus remained Indian country, such that crimes committed by enrolled tribal members cannot be tried in state court. United States v. Kagama United States v. Kagama , 118 U.S. 375 (1886),

912-646: The Supreme Court decision, eleven months had passed. The trial was held in San Francisco in September 1886. The prosecution called four witnesses, including Iyouse's wife and a witness to the murder named "Charlie". The defense called one witness, John B. Treadwell. Treadwell testified that the murder was outside the boundaries of the reservation. Based on Treadwell's position within the United States General Land Office ,

960-546: The Supreme Court ruled that the Major Crimes Act was constitutional, and, therefore, the case was within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Miller dismissed the argument that the Act was proper under the Indian Commerce Clause, noting that the case did not present a commerce issue. He held instead that it was necessary since Indians were wards of the United States. Justice Miller was known for writing opinions that supported federal power over state's rights. This ruling meant that

1008-752: The United States Constitution also states that the Congress has the power to enact laws respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States. Federal jurisdiction exists over any territory thus subject to laws enacted by the Congress. The American legal system includes both state courts and federal courts . State courts hear cases involving state law, and such federal laws as are not restricted to hearing in federal courts. Federal courts may only hear cases where federal jurisdiction can be established. Specifically,

SECTION 20

#1732771944639

1056-458: The United States, and either within or without the Indian reservation, shall be subject therefor to the laws of said territory relating to said crimes, and shall be tried therefor in the same courts, and in the same manner, and shall be subject to the same penalties, as are all other persons charged with the commission of the said crimes respectively; and said courts are hereby given jurisdiction in all such cases; and all such Indians committing any of

1104-428: The United States. This list of crimes has since been updated to the following (as of Pub. L. 114-38): The constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act was upheld in United States v. Kagama (118 U.S. 375 (1886)), a case in which two Indians were prosecuted for killing another Indian on a reservation. While the Court agreed that the prosecution of major crimes did not fall within Congress's power to regulate commerce with

1152-415: The above-described crimes against the person or property of another Indian or other person, within the boundaries of any State of the United States, and within the limits of any Indian reservation, shall be subject to the same laws, tried in the same courts, and in the same manner, and subject to the same penalties, as are all other persons committing any of the above crimes within the exclusive jurisdiction of

1200-503: The challenge but disagreed on the law. The case received a " certificate of division " resulting in the case being forwarded to the Supreme Court later in October. Since this case challenged the authority of the federal courts to try Indian-on-Indian crime, this case was heard as an interlocutory appeal , meaning that the Supreme Court would have to decide the constitutionality of the claimed jurisdiction before Kagama could be tried for

1248-478: The constitutionality of the Act. The importance of the ruling in this particular case was that it tested the constitutionality of the Act and confirmed Congress's authority over Indian affairs. Plenary power over Indian tribes, supposedly granted to the U.S. Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution , was deemed not necessary to support the Supreme Court's decision. Instead, the Court found that

1296-469: The court must have both subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter of the claim and personal jurisdiction over the parties. The Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning that they only exercise powers granted to them by the Constitution and Federal Laws. There are several forms of subject-matter jurisdiction, but the two most commonly appealed to are federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction . Federal question jurisdiction

1344-585: The court to look to its earlier ruling in Crow Dog , where the Court commented in dicta that Congress possessed the authority to regulate all commerce with Indian tribes, because of the Indian Commerce Clause of the Constitution . In his listing of precedents, he cited numerous laws passed by Congress regulating Indian commerce; he did not cite any other case law that supported Congress' authority over internal Indian matters, because there

1392-530: The court—usually interested third parties with some expertise to bear on the subject) and schedule oral arguments. The Justices will closely question both parties. When the Court renders its decision, it will generally do so in a single majority opinion and one or more dissenting opinions . Each opinion sets forth the facts, prior decisions, and legal reasoning behind the position taken. The majority opinion constitutes binding precedent on all lower courts; when faced with very similar facts, they are bound to apply

1440-569: The doctrine is still current law. In 2010, Pawnee lawyer Walter Echo-Hawk wrote in his book, In the Courts of the Conqueror , that Kagama has been used: [T]o justify excessive government intrusion into the internal affairs of Indian tribes and to exercise unwarranted control over the lives and property of American Indians in a slide towards despotism ... [T]he creation of frightening, state-run, Orwellian societies on Indian reservations

1488-699: The federal circuit court's indictment would stand and the case would proceed to trial back in Northern California. The opinion drew heavily on the language of the Solicitor General's brief, which by today's standards would be considered by many as racially charged. The language in Miller's opinion is infamous for its description of Indian tribes as weak, degraded and dependent on the federal government for support. He adopts language from Cherokee Nation v. Georgia describing each tribe as

Major Crimes Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

1536-537: The federal courts over Indian-on-Indian crime in Indian country, and then the Court would confirm its constitutionality. In response, Congress debated the need and importance of teaching Indians regard for the rule of law. Further, it was argued that if an Indian committed a crime he could be tried under the laws of the United States. Congress ultimately passed an addendum to the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1885 , more commonly known as

1584-409: The indictment as stated contained no element of commerce and was therefore outside the purview of Congress to legislate such a law. Finally, he argued that such a profound shift in Indian policy should not be enacted in a law whose heading and body were wholly inconsistent with the intent of the Major Crimes Act. In effect, he argued that such a law governing a people should be debated in full sight of

1632-508: The issue of establishing who has jurisdiction and what type of jurisdiction. In such areas, the federal government may have proprietary jurisdiction (rights as landowner), concurrent jurisdiction (with federal and state law applicable), or exclusive jurisdiction over the land where an act was committed. Courts-martial involving military members subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice apply regardless of location. Article Four of

1680-400: The judge believed him and ordered a directed verdict of not guilty. Humboldt County Sheriff T. M. Brown stated that he would not arrest Kagama for a crime against another Indian. Brown stated that in his 26 years of law enforcement in the area, the state had never prosecuted an Indian for Indian-on-Indian crime. Brown also said that Kagama was trustworthy and industrious, while the victim

1728-456: The killing of Iyouse in federal court. Kagama was represented by 27-year-old Joseph D. Redding . The United States was represented by George A. Jenks , who was an Assistant United States Secretary of the Interior . Arguments were heard before the Supreme Court on May 2, 1886, only five months after the circuit court delivered a split opinion on the matter of jurisdiction. Jenks urged

1776-572: The local military garrison ( Fort Gaston ) on the reservation was charged with the de facto responsibility for the people on the reservation. Without legal authority and against government policy, Porter allotted small parcels of land to the local Indian people, thus upsetting an age-old property rights system among families in the Klamath River Valley. On several occasions, Agent Porter had been called out to Kagama and Iyouse's homes to mediate their property dispute. Shortly before

1824-537: The murder, Kagama requested title to the land upon which he built his home. On June 24, 1885, three months after the Major Crimes Act was passed, Kagama and his son Mahawaha went to Iyouse's house, where an argument ensued that resulted in the death by stabbing of Iyouse. Mahawaha reportedly held Iyouse's wife while Kagama stabbed Iyouse. Agent Porter moved quickly to detain both Kagama and Mahawaha on murder charges. He informed both federal and state authorities. The local district attorney declined to prosecute, citing

1872-458: The power derived from the tribes' status as dependent domestic nations. This recognition allowed Congress to pass the Dawes Act the following year. The case has been criticized by legal scholars as drawing on powers that are not granted to Congress by the Constitution , but it remains good law . In 1881, a Brulé Lakota Sioux named Crow Dog killed his government-installed chief. Crow Dog

1920-623: The reservation boundaries to the north. Because the crime supposedly occurred on the Hoopa Valley Reservation, the U.S. Attorney and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) fully supported the jurisdictional shift to the federal government and were immediately prepared to prosecute the case in federal courts. Challenges to the subject matter jurisdiction were heard before the circuit court in early October 1885. Circuit Judge Lorenzo Sawyer and District Court Judge George Sabin heard

1968-419: The temptation' to express preferences about [certain types of cases] in the form of jurisdictional rules. Judges must strain to remove the influence of the merits from their jurisdictional rules. The law of jurisdiction must remain apart from the world upon which it operates". Generally, when a case has successfully overcome the hurdles of standing , Case or Controversy and State Action , it will be heard by

Major Crimes Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

2016-527: Was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act of 1885 . This Congressional act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if they were committed on an Indian reservation. Kagama, a Yurok Native American (Indian) accused of murder, was selected as a test case by the Department of Justice to test

2064-520: Was a "treacherous" blackmailer who had already killed several men. The sheriff believed that Kagama did not have any option but to kill the victim. Kagama was the case that articulated Congress' plenary power over the Native American tribes in the late 19th century. It reaffirmed Congress' power to pass legislation, including the Dawes Act , that would take away many of the liberties that Native Americans had been able to hold on to up until that point. 19th and early 20th century U.S. lawmakers viewed

2112-821: Was created by executive order in 1864. At the time the reservation was formed, three unique bands of Indian tribes lived on different parts of the Klamath River , each with its own language. The Yurok lived on the Lower Klamath, the Karuk occupied the Upper Klamath and the Hupa lived at the confluence of the Trinity and Klamath Rivers in Humboldt County, California . The reservation was supposed to be

2160-587: Was detained and tried for murder. However, he contended that the United States held no jurisdiction on the reservation . The Supreme Court agreed, confirming Crow Dog's assertion that they lacked jurisdiction because the crime occurred in Indian country between two Indians. In the opinion issued by Justice Stanley Matthews for the Supreme Court in Ex parte Crow Dog in 1883, the Court implied that if Congress intended to exert legislative authority over these tribes they must pass an explicit law granting jurisdiction to

2208-426: Was due to the tribes dealing with the U.S. government. Frickey felt the decision was an embarrassment to constitutional theory, to logic, and to humanity. Robert N. Clinton stated that "[t]his remarkable decision obviously invoked rhetoric of colonial expansion, rather than the rhetoric of American constitutional discourse." Daniel L. Rotenberg said that Kagama was "one more item on the long litany of injustices to

2256-523: Was none. Further, Jenks incorporated aspects of the political debate in Congress when the act was passed citing that the U.S. should be able to enforce its laws within its borders, regardless of treaty rights. The prosecution argued that Congress had the absolute authority to regulate Indians and their affairs. Joseph Redding defended his clients vigorously. His argument was three-fold. First he argued that in one hundred years of Indian policy, Congress had never prosecuted Indian-on-Indian crime. Further,

2304-468: Was perfectly legal in the courts of the conqueror, because it was done in the name of guardianship. Federal jurisdiction (United States) Federal jurisdiction refers to the legal scope of the government 's powers in the United States of America . The United States is a federal republic , governed by the U.S. Constitution , containing fifty states and a federal district which elect

#638361