Ex Parte Crow Dog
109 U.S. 556, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 997, 3 S. Ct. 396 (1883)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal courts lack criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by one Native American against another in Indian country unless Congress has passed a statute explicitly conferring such jurisdiction. General provisions in treaties subjecting a tribe to U.S. laws are insufficient to implicitly repeal a specific federal statute that expressly exempts intra-tribal offenses from federal jurisdiction.
Facts:
- Crow Dog was a member of the Brule Sioux band of the Sioux Nation.
- Spotted Tail was also a member of the Brule Sioux band.
- Crow Dog killed Spotted Tail.
- The killing occurred on the Sioux Indian reservation within the Territory of Dakota, an area defined as Indian country.
Procedural Posture:
- Crow Dog was indicted for murder in the United States District Court for the Territory of Dakota, a court of first instance.
- After a trial, a jury convicted Crow Dog, and the court sentenced him to death.
- Crow Dog sought a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Dakota, an intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the lower court's judgment.
- Crow Dog then petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his trial and conviction were void because the territorial court lacked jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a United States territorial court have jurisdiction to try and convict a Native American for the murder of another Native American, committed within a reservation, when a specific federal statute excludes crimes committed by one Native American against another from federal jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Matthews
No. The United States territorial court lacks jurisdiction because the specific federal statute exempting intra-Indian crimes from federal authority, Rev. Stat. § 2146, has not been repealed. The government argued that general language in the 1868 Treaty and the 1877 Agreement, which subjected the Sioux to U.S. laws, implicitly repealed this statutory exception. The Court rejected this, reasoning that implied repeals are heavily disfavored and require a 'positive repugnancy' between the old and new laws. The specific and express language of § 2146 cannot be overridden by the general, inconclusive phrases in the subsequent treaty and agreement. Upholding federal jurisdiction would reverse the long-standing policy of the United States to recognize tribal sovereignty over internal affairs and would improperly subject Native Americans to a foreign legal code without a clear and express mandate from Congress.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant affirmation of tribal sovereignty, upholding the principle that Native American tribes retain inherent jurisdiction over their internal affairs unless expressly divested by Congress. The ruling shocked the public and the federal government, who viewed it as allowing a murderer to escape justice under U.S. law. In direct response to this case, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act of 1885, which legislatively overturned the holding by granting federal courts jurisdiction over several serious felonies committed by Native Americans in Indian country, thereby beginning a significant legislative erosion of tribal criminal jurisdiction.
Unlock the full brief for Ex Parte Crow Dog