Ex parte Crow Dog

Ex parte Crow Dog
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 26, 1883
Decided December 17, 1883
Full case nameEx parte Kan-gi-shun-ca (otherwise known as Crow Dog)
Citations109 U.S. 556 (more)
3 S. Ct. 396; 27 L. Ed. 1030; 1883 U.S. LEXIS 997
Case history
PriorU.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
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley · John M. Harlan
William B. Woods · Stanley Matthews
Horace Gray · Samuel Blatchford
Case opinion
MajorityMatthews, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Revised Stat. §2146 (1878)

Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), is a landmark[1][2] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that followed the death of one member of a Native American tribe at the hands of another on reservation land.[fn 1] Crow Dog was a member of the Brulé band of the Lakota Sioux. On August 5, 1881 he shot and killed Spotted Tail, a Lakota chief; there are different accounts of the background to the killing. The tribal council dealt with the incident according to Sioux tradition, and Crow Dog paid restitution to the dead man's family. However, the U.S. authorities then prosecuted Crow Dog for murder in a federal court. He was found guilty and sentenced to hang.

The defendant then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the federal court had no jurisdiction to try cases where the offense had already been tried by the tribal council.[3] The court found unanimously for the plaintiff and Crow Dog was therefore released. This case was the first time in history that an Indian was held on trial for the murder of another Indian. The case led to the Major Crimes Act in 1885, which placed some major crimes (initially seven, now 15) under federal jurisdiction if committed by an Indian against another Indian on a reservation or tribal land. This case was the beginning of the plenary power legal doctrine that has been used in Indian case law to limit tribal sovereignty.

  1. ^ Magoc, Chris J.; Bernstein, David, eds. (December 14, 2015). "VOLUME 2: Northwest Indian Wars to Wounded Knee → 3. Controlling the Indians, 1835 – 1903 → Historical Overview → Custer, George Armstrong". Imperialism and Expansionism in American History: A Social, Political, and Cultural Encyclopedia and Document Collection. Santa Barbara, California, United States of America: ABC-CLIO. p. 616. ISBN 978-1-61069-429-2. Retrieved June 16, 2020.
  2. ^ C. Joseph Genetin-Pilawa (October 22, 2012). "Chapter 1: Confininig Indians". Crooked Paths to Allotment: The Fight over Federal Indian Policy after the Civil War (First ed.). Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America: The University of North Carolina Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-8078-3576-0. Retrieved June 16, 2020.
  3. ^ Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883).


Cite error: There are <ref group=fn> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=fn}} template (see the help page).