United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886), was a 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 cases of Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if the crimes 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 the
constitutionality of the Act.
The importance of the ruling in this case was that it tested the constitutionality of the Act and confirmed Congress' authority over Indian affairs. Plenary power over Indian tribes, supposedly granted to the U.S. Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, was not deemed necessary to support the Supreme Court in this decision; instead, the Court found the power in the tribes' status as dependent domestic nations. This 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. It remains good law, despite that criticism.
In 1881, a Brulé Lakota Sioux named Crow Dog killed his government-installed chief. Crow Dog was detained and tried for murder. However, he contended that theUnited 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 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 theUnited States .
Congress ultimately passed an addendum to the Indian Appropriations Act of
March 3, 1885, more commonly known as 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.
Hoopa Valley Reservation
The Hoopa Valley Reservation 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 theKlamath 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 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 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 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 a policy of not prosecuting crimes between Indians. The U.S. Attorney forNorthern 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 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 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 the killing of Iyouse in federal court.
Kagama was represented by 27-year-old Joseph D. Redding. TheUnited 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 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 was none. Further, Jenks incorporated aspects of the political debate in Congress when the act was passed citing that theU.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, 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 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, 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 theUnited States . Justice Miller was
known for writing opinions that supported federal power over state's rights.
This ruling meant that 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 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 theU.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 the Supreme Court decision, eleven months had passed.
The importance of the ruling in this case was that it tested the constitutionality of the Act and confirmed Congress' authority over Indian affairs. Plenary power over Indian tribes, supposedly granted to the U.S. Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, was not deemed necessary to support the Supreme Court in this decision; instead, the Court found the power in the tribes' status as dependent domestic nations. This 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. It remains good law, despite that criticism.
Background
Crow Dog and the
Major Crimes Act of 1885
In 1881, a Brulé Lakota Sioux named Crow Dog killed his government-installed chief. Crow Dog was detained and tried for murder. However, he contended that the
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
The Hoopa Valley Reservation 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
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 the local military garrison (
The Crime and the
Path to the Supreme Court
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 a policy of not prosecuting crimes between Indians. The U.S. Attorney for
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 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 the killing of Iyouse in federal court.
The Supreme Court
Arguments
Kagama was represented by 27-year-old Joseph D. Redding. The
Jenks urged 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 was none. Further, Jenks incorporated aspects of the political debate in Congress when the act was passed citing that the
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, 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 the American public and on its own merits.
Opinion of the Court
In a unanimous decision issued at the end of May 1886, and authored by Justice Samuel Freeman Miller, 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
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 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
No comments:
Post a Comment