United States v. Kagama

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Supreme Court case

United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886), 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 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 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 .

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Kagama&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

Crow Dog and the Major Crimes Act of 1885

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Kagama&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Crow Dog and the Major Crimes Act of 1885")
]

Main articles: Crow Dog , Ex parte Crow Dog , and Major Crimes Act

Crow Dog

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 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 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 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

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Kagama&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Hoopa Valley Reservation")
]

Trinity River near 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 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 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.

The crime and the path to the Supreme Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Kagama&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: 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 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 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.

…