Ex parte Crow Dog facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Ex parte Crow Dog |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 26, 1883 Decided December 17, 1883 |
|
| Full case name | Ex parte Kan-gi-shun-ca (otherwise known as Crow Dog) |
| Citations | 109 U.S. 556 (more)
3 S. Ct. 396; 27 L. Ed. 1030; 1883 U.S. LEXIS 997
|
| Prior history | U.S. v. Kan-gi-shun-ca, 14 N.W. 437, 3 Dakota 106 (Dakota Terr. 1882) |
| Holding | |
| Held that a federal court did not have jurisdiction to try an Indian who killed another Indian on the reservation when the offense had been tried by the tribal court, writ of habeas corpus granted. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Matthews, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| Revised Stat. §2146 (1878) | |
Ex parte Crow Dog was an important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1883. It was about a case where one member of a Native American tribe killed another on their reservation land. This case helped shape how the US government deals with Native American tribes and their own laws.
Contents
What was the Crow Dog Case About?
The case involved a man named Crow Dog, who was a member of the Brulé band of the Lakota Sioux. On August 5, 1881, he shot and killed Spotted Tail, who was a Lakota chief. There are different stories about why this happened.
The Tribal Way vs. US Law
The Lakota tribal council, which was the group of leaders for the tribe, handled the situation in their traditional way. Crow Dog paid "restitution" to Spotted Tail's family. This means he gave them something valuable to make up for what happened, as was the custom.
However, the US government authorities then charged Crow Dog with murder in a federal court. A federal court is a court run by the US national government. He was found guilty and faced a severe punishment.
What the Supreme Court Decided
Crow Dog then asked the Supreme Court for a special legal order called a "writ of habeas corpus". He argued that the federal court did not have the "jurisdiction" (legal power) to try his case. He said this was because the tribal council had already dealt with the matter.
The Supreme Court agreed with Crow Dog. All the judges voted the same way, meaning it was a "unanimous" decision. Because of this, Crow Dog was released. This case was the first time an Indigenous person was tried in a US federal court for killing another Indigenous person.
The Major Crimes Act
The Ex parte Crow Dog case led to a new law in 1885 called the Major Crimes Act. This law gave federal courts the power to handle certain serious crimes (like murder) if they were committed by an Indigenous person against another Indigenous person on a reservation. At first, the law covered seven crimes, but now it covers 15.
What is Plenary Power?
This case also started a legal idea called the "plenary power doctrine." This idea says that the US Congress has full and complete power over Native American tribes. The Supreme Court said in the Crow Dog case that the federal court didn't have jurisdiction because Congress hadn't passed a law giving them that power or taking away the tribe's rights.
Later, in a case called United States v. Kagama (1886), the Supreme Court supported this idea even more. It said that Congress could pass any law it wanted about tribes, even if the tribes didn't agree. Congress used this power to change treaties, like the Medicine Lodge Treaty with the Kiowa people, by making their reservation smaller without their permission.
This use of power led to complaints from Native American people. They felt they were being ruled by laws they had no say in, especially before they were granted US citizenship in 1924.
