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, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), is a landmark 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. 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. 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.
Plenary power doctrine
The court also created the plenary power doctrine, holding that the federal court did not have jurisdiction because Congress had not passed a law giving jurisdiction to the federal courts or taking away the rights of the tribe. Crow Dog was the last in a line of sovereignty cases that began with Cherokee Nation; the next major case, United States v. Kagama (1886), upheld the plenary power of Congress to enact the Major Crimes Act. The plenary power doctrine allowed Congress to enact any law that it wanted to pass, over the opposition of the tribe or tribes affected. Congress subsequently used this power to breach the Medicine Lodge Treaty with the Kiowa by reducing the size of the Kiowa reservation without their consent. The use of this power led to complaints of being subject to a lawmaking body without representation, especially prior to being granted U.S. citizenship in 1924.
