Results for United States v. Kagama
On this page:
 
US Supreme Court:

United States v. Kagama

118 U.S. 375 (1886), argued 2 Mar. 1886, decided 10 May 1886 by vote of 9 to 0; Miller for the Court. Kagama applied the broad principles governing Indian relations that Chief Justice John Marshall had articulated in Worcester v. Georgia (1832) to the question of whether a federal criminal statute specifically applicable to Indians was constitutional. The Court upheld the statute and its application (see Cherokee Cases).

In Ex parte Crow Dog (1883), the Court had held that tribal, not federal, law applied to criminal acts committed by an Indian in Indian country. In response, Congress enacted the “Major Crimes Act” as part of the Indian Appropriations Act of 1885, which extended the jurisdiction of federal courts to seven specified crimes, including murder and manslaughter committed by one Indian against another in Indian country. Applying Worcester in the Kagama case, the Court unanimously held that protection of Indians constituted a national obligation and thus sustained the power of Congress to legislate for Indians on reservations. In obiter dictum, Justice Samuel F.Miller added that state courts lacked jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians on reservations because federal power preempted state authority. He added that the states had historically been the Indians' “deadliest enemies” (p. 384).

The Kagama Court relied on Marshall's analogy to the common‐law guardian‐ward relationship as a figure explaining federal authority over Indian affairs. But the federal‐Indian relationship derives not from common law but from the Constitution's grant of power to the federal government over Indian relations. Although that power is broad, Indians may claim constitutional protection in their dealings with the federal government. Courts continue to affirm the Worcester principles of self‐government within tribal territory.

See also Native Americans.

— Rennard J. Strickland

 
 
Wikipedia: United States v. Kagama

United States v. Kagama 118 U.S. 375, 6 S.Ct. 1109, 30 L.Ed. 228 (1886) was a United States Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. This Congressional Act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain cases of crimes between Native Americans, even if the crimes were committed on an Indian Reservation. The importance of the ruling in this case was that it upheld the constitutionality of a Congressional act that held plenary power over Indian affairs. This plenary power, granted to the U.S. Congress by the Supreme Court, allowed Congress to pass the Dawes Act the following year.

Background of the case

Kagama, a Klamath Indian also known as Pactah Billy, was on trial for murder of Iyouse, another Klamath Indian, on a Hoopa reservation in June 1885. After Kagama was indicted by the U.S. federal court in San Francisco, his appeal received a division of opinion (on the matter of jurisdiction) from the circuit court, before being heard by the Supreme Court in 1886.

In a similar case, Ex Parte Crow Dog 109 U.S. 556, 3 S.Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030 (1883), the Supreme Court had ruled that the federal government did not have jurisdiction in a case involving the murder of an American Indian by another American Indian. Justice Thomas Stanley Matthews wrote the decision for the court. In this decision, Justice Matthews explained that the reason the federal court did not have jurisdiction was because there was no law passed by U.S. Congress explicitly giving it jurisdiction over crimes between Native Americans.

Congress responded to the court's ruling by passing the Major Crimes Act of 1885, which very explicitly gave the federal government jurisdiction in certain major crimes (the murder of an American Indian, by an American Indian, was included) committed by American Indians, or on Indian Reservations.

The Court's decision

In a unanimous decision, 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. This ruling meant that the San Francisco Court's indictment would stand.

Consequences of the ruling

U.S. v. Kagama was the case that upheld 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 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.

See also

References

  • Weiner, Mark S. (2006). Americans Without Law: The Racial Boundaries of Citizenship, New York: New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-9364-9

 
 

Join the WikiAnswers Q&A community. Post a question or answer questions about "United States v. Kagama" at WikiAnswers.

 

Copyrights:

US Supreme Court. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "United States v. Kagama" Read more

Search for answers directly from your browser with the FREE Answers.com Toolbar!  
Click here to download now. 

Get Answers your way! Check out all our free tools and products.

On this page:   E-mail   print Print  Link  

 

Keep Reading

Mentioned In:

    Related Topics