Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Kagama

Supreme Court of United States
118 U.S. 375 (1886)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Congress possesses plenary power to enact laws governing major crimes committed by Native Americans against other Native Americans on reservations located within a state's boundaries, derived not from an enumerated constitutional power, but from the federal government's unique trust responsibility and the status of tribes as dependent 'wards of the nation.'


Facts:

  • Kagama, a Native American, was accused of murdering Iyouse, another Native American.
  • Mahawaha, also a Native American, was accused of aiding and abetting the murder.
  • The alleged murder took place on the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation.
  • The Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation is located entirely within the geographical boundaries of the State of California.

Procedural Posture:

  • The United States indicted Kagama and Mahawaha for murder in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California.
  • The defendants filed a demurrer to the indictment, challenging the constitutionality of the federal statute under which they were charged.
  • The two judges of the Circuit Court were divided in opinion on the constitutional question.
  • The Circuit Court certified the question of the statute's constitutionality to the U.S. Supreme Court for resolution.

Locked

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 Congress have the constitutional authority under the Major Crimes Act of 1885 to give federal courts jurisdiction over major crimes committed by one Native American against another on a reservation located entirely within a state?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Miller

Yes. Congress has the constitutional authority to enact the Major Crimes Act, which grants federal courts jurisdiction over these crimes. The court reasoned that this authority does not derive from the Commerce Clause, but rather from the unique historical relationship between the federal government and Native American tribes. It characterized the tribes as 'wards of the nation' and 'dependent communities' that rely on the United States for protection, as they owe no allegiance to the states and often receive no protection from them. From this established duty of protection, the court concluded, arises the corresponding power to legislate, including defining and punishing crimes committed on reservations.



Analysis:

This landmark decision formally established the doctrine of congressional plenary power over Native American affairs. It significantly shifted the constitutional basis for federal authority away from specific enumerated powers like the Commerce Clause and grounded it in a unique, extraconstitutional trust relationship, treating tribes as 'wards' of the federal government. This ruling substantially diminished tribal sovereignty by allowing federal law to intervene in the internal criminal matters of tribes and has served as the foundation for extensive federal legislation concerning Native Americans ever since.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query United States v. Kagama (1886) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for United States v. Kagama