United States v. Antelope
430 U.S. 641 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal legislation singling out Indians for different treatment is not based on an impermissible racial classification but on their unique political status as members of quasi-sovereign tribal entities, and therefore does not violate the equal protection principles of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Facts:
- Respondents Gabriel Francis Antelope, Leonard Davison, and William Davison were enrolled members of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe.
- On February 18, 1974, the respondents broke into the home of Emma Johnson, an 81-year-old non-Indian.
- The home was located within the boundaries of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation in Idaho.
- During the break-in, the respondents robbed and killed Mrs. Johnson.
- Under the federal Major Crimes Act, the respondents were subject to the federal felony-murder rule, which did not require proof of premeditation for a first-degree murder conviction.
- Under Idaho law, which would have applied to a non-Indian committing the same crime, there was no felony-murder rule, and prosecutors would have had to prove premeditation and deliberation for a first-degree murder conviction.
Procedural Posture:
- Gabriel Francis Antelope, Leonard Davison, and William Davison were indicted by a federal grand jury for burglary, robbery, and murder.
- Following a trial in federal district court, Antelope and Leonard Davison were convicted of first-degree felony murder.
- The respondents appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the felony-murder convictions, holding that the statutory scheme constituted invidious racial discrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
- The United States, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by 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 Major Crimes Act violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by subjecting an enrolled Indian to federal prosecution under a law that is more stringent than the state law that would apply to a non-Indian for the same offense committed in the same location?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. The Major Crimes Act does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as federal statutes that treat Indians differently are based on their political status, not on impermissible racial classifications. The Court reasoned that the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to legislate with respect to Indian tribes, which are unique political entities with attributes of sovereignty. Citing Morton v. Mancari, the Court affirmed that such legislation is not viewed as creating a racial classification but as governing members of quasi-sovereign political communities. Therefore, the respondents were subjected to federal jurisdiction because of their status as enrolled members of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, a political classification, not because of their race. Furthermore, the Court held that the federal government does not violate equal protection when its own body of law, applied evenly to all persons within federal jurisdiction, differs from state law. The disparity between the federal felony-murder rule and Idaho's murder statute is inconsequential because Congress has the constitutional power to prescribe a criminal code for Indian country.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle established in Morton v. Mancari that legal classifications based on Native American tribal membership are political, not racial, and therefore are not subject to strict scrutiny under equal protection analysis. It affirms Congress's plenary power over Indian affairs, even when federal law results in less favorable treatment for tribal members compared to non-Indians who would be subject to state law for the same conduct. The case clarifies that the equal protection concern is whether federal law is applied evenhandedly to all persons within federal jurisdiction, not whether federal law is consistent with the laws of the surrounding state. This ruling is foundational to modern federal Indian law, insulating a wide range of federal statutes concerning tribes from equal protection challenges based on race.
