Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1883

Ex Parte Crow Dog

109 U.S. 556 | 3 S. Ct. 396 | 27 L. Ed. 1030 | 1883 U.S. LEXIS 997

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Ex Parte Crow Dog held that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over an Indian's crime against another Indian in Indian country when § 2146 expressly reserved such internal tribal matters to tribal authority; general treaty and statutory language did not repeal that protection by implication.

Background

Crow Dog, a Brulé Sioux Indian, killed Spotted Tail, another Brulé Sioux Indian, on the Sioux Reservation in Dakota Territory. A Dakota territorial district court, exercising federal jurisdiction, convicted Crow Dog of murder under the federal murder statute and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court of the Territory affirmed.

Crow Dog sought habeas corpus in the Supreme Court. He argued that federal law did not make an offense of a crime committed by one Indian against another Indian in Indian country, so the territorial district court lacked jurisdiction and its death sentence was void.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Sioux Reservation was Indian country within the territorial reach of the federal court sitting under federal authority.

Holding

Yes. The reservation was Indian country, and the Dakota territorial district court could exercise federal judicial power there over offenses that Congress had made punishable under federal law.

Reasoning

Although the Revised Statutes no longer contained the 1834 Act's formal definition of Indian country, the Court treated that earlier definition as useful in construing the surviving statutes that continued to refer to Indian country. Under the Court's prior decision in Bates v. Clark, land remained Indian country while Indian title remained unextinguished, absent a contrary treaty or statute.

The Sioux Reservation fell within this understanding of Indian country. It lay geographically within Dakota Territory, even though federal law excluded it from the Territory for purposes of territorial civil government in order to protect tribal rights.

The Dakota district court had two capacities: as a territorial court it enforced local territorial law, and as a court vested by Congress with federal circuit- and district-court jurisdiction it could enforce federal criminal law. Thus, it could hear a federally cognizable offense committed on the reservation—but only if Congress had actually made the conduct a federal offense.

Issue #2

Whether federal criminal law gave the Dakota court jurisdiction over Crow Dog's killing of another Sioux Indian in Indian country.

Holding

No. Revised Statutes § 2146 expressly excluded crimes committed by one Indian against another Indian from the federal criminal laws extended to Indian country, including the federal murder statute.

Reasoning

Section 2145 generally extended federal criminal laws governing places under exclusive federal jurisdiction to Indian country. But § 2146 immediately created a specific exception for crimes committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian. Crow Dog's alleged killing of Spotted Tail fit squarely within that exception.

The Court read the exception as a continuation of a longstanding federal policy: internal offenses among members of Indian tribes were ordinarily left to tribal law, customs, and institutions. Earlier federal statutes had focused on offenses between Indians and non-Indians, while leaving Indian-on-Indian offenses to tribal regulation.

Because the federal court was one of limited jurisdiction, it could not infer authority to impose federal criminal law in a capital case. Clear congressional authorization was necessary, particularly where the governing statute expressly withheld federal jurisdiction.

Issue #3

Whether the 1868 Sioux Treaty or the 1877 congressional enactment repealed by implication the Indian-on-Indian exception in § 2146.

Holding

No. Neither the treaty nor the 1877 enactment expressly or necessarily repealed § 2146, so the statutory exception remained in force.

Reasoning

The 1868 treaty required the Sioux to deliver up Indian wrongdoers who committed wrongs against persons subject to United States authority. Read in context with the reciprocal promise to punish non-Indian wrongdoers who injured Indians, this provision addressed offenses across the boundary between the United States' population and the tribe, not a wrong by one member of the tribe against another member of the same tribe.

The 1877 enactment stated that the Sioux would be subject to the laws of the United States and promised that Congress would secure them an orderly government through appropriate legislation. The Court understood this language as recognizing the United States' protective authority over a dependent tribal community, while preserving the expectation of tribal self-government in domestic affairs. It did not transform individual tribal members into persons subject to every generally applicable federal criminal law.

Repeals by implication are disfavored. The specific and express Indian-on-Indian exception could be displaced only by a later enactment clearly inconsistent with it. The treaty and statute could be read consistently with § 2146, and their broad language did not demonstrate the necessary congressional intent to overturn the established policy of tribal control over internal offenses.

The Court emphasized the gravity of applying an external criminal code to tribal members without unmistakable authorization. Federal law was being invoked to impose a death sentence for conduct traditionally governed by tribal customs, before judges and under legal rules foreign to the accused. That context reinforced the need for a clear statement from Congress.