Talton v. Mayes
16 S. Ct. 986, 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2276, 163 U.S. 376 (1896)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and by extension the Bill of Rights, does not apply to the internal legislation of sovereign Native American tribes. The powers of local self-government exercised by the tribes are inherent powers that predate the Constitution, not federal powers derived from it.
Facts:
- The appellant, a Cherokee Indian, was charged with murdering another Cherokee Indian.
- The crime occurred within the territory of the Cherokee Nation.
- At the time, Cherokee law provided for a grand jury composed of five persons.
- The appellant was indicted for murder in December 1892 by a five-person grand jury empaneled under Cherokee law.
- In November 1892, the Cherokee Nation had enacted a new law requiring a thirteen-person grand jury, but this law was not scheduled to take effect until the court term beginning in May 1893.
Procedural Posture:
- Talton was tried, convicted of murder, and sentenced to death by a court of the Cherokee Nation.
- While imprisoned, Talton filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a United States federal court, claiming his indictment was unconstitutional.
- The federal court denied his petition for habeas corpus.
- Talton then appealed the denial to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 the Fifth Amendment's requirement for a grand jury indictment in capital crimes apply to criminal proceedings conducted by the Cherokee Nation for a crime committed by one member against another within its territory?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not apply to the local legislation of the Cherokee Nation. The powers of local self-government exercised by the Cherokee Nation are not federal powers created by the Constitution but are inherent, pre-existing powers. Citing Barron v. Baltimore, the Court affirmed that the Fifth Amendment is a limitation only on the powers of the U.S. federal government, not on distinct governments. Treaties and statutes have consistently recognized the Cherokee Nation as a distinct political community with the authority to manage its own internal affairs and punish offenses committed by one member against another. Because the tribe's power is not derived from the Constitution, the constitutional limitations on federal power, such as the Fifth Amendment's grand jury clause, do not operate upon it.
Dissenting - Justice Harlan
Mr. Justice Harlan dissented. (No opinion was provided in the case text).
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in federal Indian law, establishing the principle that Native American tribes possess an inherent sovereignty that is not derived from the U.S. Constitution. By holding that the Bill of Rights does not constrain tribal governments, the Court affirmed their status as distinct political entities with powers of self-governance. This doctrine of inherent tribal sovereignty meant that individual rights protections against tribal government actions had to come from tribal law itself, not the U.S. Constitution. The holding's practical effect was later modified by Congress through the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which statutorily imposed many, but not all, of the Bill of Rights' protections onto tribal governments.
Unlock the full brief for Talton v. Mayes