Other Free Encyclopedias :: Law Library - American Law and Legal Information :: Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1883 to 1917
 

Ex Parte Crow Dog - Significance, An Orderly Government, Impact, The Indian Civil Rights Act

Petitioner

Crow Dog of the Sioux Indian Nation

Respondent

United States

Petitioner's Claim

That the U.S. court system does not have jurisdiction over crimes committed within the boundaries of an Indian reservation by one tribal member against another.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

A. J. Plowman

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Samuel F. Phillips, U.S. Solicitor General

Justices for the Court

Samuel Blatchford, Joseph P. Bradley, Stephen Johnson Field, Horace Gray, John Marshall Harlan I, Stanley Matthews (writing for the Court), Samuel Freeman Miller, Morrison Remick Waite, William Burnham Woods

Justices Dissenting

None

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

17 December 1883

Decision

Upheld Crow Dog's claim and overturned the lower court's decision sentencing him to death for a murder.

Related Cases

  • Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. (31 U.S.) 515 (1832).
  • United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886).
  • Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896).
  • Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959).
  • Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978).
  • Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990).

Sources

Bacon, Donald C., et al., eds. The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.

Further Readings

  • Harring, Sidney L. Crow Dog's Case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
  • Native American Rights Fund. http://www.narf.org.
  • Wilkins, David E. American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Masking of Justice. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1997.

Additional Topics

Ex Parte Crow Dog - Significance

The ruling established that U.S. courts did not have criminal jurisdiction in cases where one Native American murders another on reservation lands. The Court ruled that tribes held exclusive jurisdiction over their own internal affairs, including murder cases. The decision, however, prompted a swift congressional reaction. Since 1885 Congress has exercised absolute (plenary) power over tribal juri…

Ex Parte Crow Dog - An Orderly Government

Crow Dog, whose Indian name was Kan-gi-Shun-ca, and Spotted Tail, also known as Sin-ta-ge-le-Scka, were members of the Brule Sioux Band of the Sioux Nation. Crow Dog, at odds with Spotted Tail over several personal and public matters, shot and killed him in August of 1881. Through application of traditional Sioux law, the families settled the matter by Crow Dog's family paying restitution to the v…

Ex Parte Crow Dog - Impact

The Crow Dog decision represented to many an extreme application of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty and self-government. Stunned by the Court's finding, two years later Congress passed the Major Crimes Act of 1885. The law essentially overturned the Crow Dog decision by identifying seven crimes on Indian lands over which federal courts would assume jurisdiction, including murder. The act was im…

Ex Parte Crow Dog - The Indian Civil Rights Act

The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 was enacted at a time when Native American groups were involved in bringing about a resurgence in Native American cultures and demanding that their civil rights be recognized. North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin, Jr., received authorization from the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1961 to conduct hearings on the state of constitutional rights among Native Americans. …

United States v. Winans - Significance, Court Sides With The Yakimas [next] [back] In re Neagle - Significance, The Seeds Of Vengeance, Murder Or Duty?, The "peace Of The United States"

User Comments Add a comment…

over 2 years ago

Mario A.

This has been very useful, I am Dineh and im taking a Federal Indian Law class. this is very useful...