United States v. McBratney
104 U.S. 621, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2056, 26 L. Ed. 869 (1882)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a state is admitted into the Union on an equal footing with existing states, it acquires criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by non-Indians against non-Indians on an Indian reservation within its boundaries, unless Congress has expressly reserved that jurisdiction for the federal government.
Facts:
- A murder was committed on the Ute Reservation.
- The Ute Reservation is located entirely within the geographical limits of the State of Colorado.
- The accused, the defendant in this case, was a white man.
- The victim, Thomas Casey, was also a white man.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted for the murder of Thomas Casey in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado.
- He was convicted of murder in that court.
- Following his conviction, the defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, challenging the court's jurisdiction over the crime.
- The two federal judges hearing the motion, Mr. Justice Miller and Judge Hallett, were opposed in their opinions on the jurisdictional question.
- The question of whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction was certified to the Supreme Court of the United States for a decision.
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 Circuit Court have jurisdiction over a murder committed by a white man against another white man on an Indian reservation located entirely within the geographical boundaries of a state admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the original states?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Gray
No. The United States Circuit Court lacks jurisdiction because when a state is admitted to the Union on an 'equal footing' without an express reservation of federal jurisdiction, the state assumes jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against non-Indians within its borders, including on Indian reservations. The court reasoned that the act admitting Colorado into the Union in 1875 did so 'upon an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever' and, unlike the prior territorial act, contained no exception for the Ute Reservation. This act of admission implicitly repealed any prior statutes or treaties inconsistent with it. The court noted that whenever Congress intends to retain sole and exclusive jurisdiction over a reservation within a new state, it must do so with express words. Since no such reservation was made, Colorado acquired criminal jurisdiction over its own citizens throughout its territory, meaning the reservation was no longer under the 'sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States' for a crime of this nature. The treaty with the Ute Indians does not apply here as it contains no provisions for punishing offenses committed by white men against other white men.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'equal footing doctrine' as a critical principle in determining state versus federal jurisdiction on Indian reservations. It creates a significant carve-out from general federal jurisdiction over 'Indian country,' holding that statehood presumptively grants a state authority over crimes between non-Indians on reservation land. This decision shifted the default rule, requiring an express act of Congress to reserve federal jurisdiction, rather than an express act to grant it to the state. The ruling has had a lasting impact, shaping the complex jurisdictional landscape of criminal law on Indian reservations and reinforcing the principle of state sovereignty upon admission to the Union.
