Ex Parte Crow Dog
Ex Parte Crow Dog is a significant legal case involving a Brule Sioux tribal member named Crow Dog, who was convicted of murder in a Dakota territorial court and sentenced to death. The case arose from Crow Dog's contention that, under tribal law, his actions would not warrant a death sentence; instead, he would be required to support the victim's family. He argued for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the federal government lacked jurisdiction over disputes among Native Americans within Indian territory. The U.S. government countered that a treaty from 1868 implicitly granted federal jurisdiction over such matters.
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Crow Dog, asserting that Indian tribes retained exclusive jurisdiction over their affairs unless Congress explicitly stated otherwise. This ruling underscored the principle of Native American sovereignty and influenced subsequent legal interpretations regarding tribal rights. In response to the decision, Congress enacted the Major Crimes Act in 1885, which established federal jurisdiction over specific felonies on Indian lands. The Crow Dog case continues to be a foundational precedent for interpreting treaties in favor of Native American sovereignty, especially regarding rights retained by tribes.
Ex Parte Crow Dog
Date: December 17, 1883
Citation: 109 U.S. 557
Issue: Native American sovereignty
Significance: The Supreme Court held that federal law does not preempt tribal authority unless Congress clearly expressed its intent to do so.
Crow Dog, a Brule Sioux, was convicted and sentenced to death in a Dakota territorial court for the murder of another Sioux. Under tribal law, Crow Dog would not have received a sentence of death but would have been required to support the victim’s family. He sought a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the federal government had no criminal jurisdiction over disputes among Native Americans in Indian territory. The U.S. government asserted that the Treaty of 1868 implicitly provided for federal jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions.
By a 9-0 vote, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Crow Dog’s claim. In his opinion, Justice Stanley Matthews wrote that although Congress possessed the constitutional authority to determine the scope of Indian self-government, it had not clearly expressed its intent to limit tribal authority in Dakota territory. Unless the legislation was explicit, the Indian tribes retained exclusive jurisdiction over Indian affairs on the reservations. Reacting to the decision, Congress in 1885 passed the Major Crimes Act, which provided federal jurisdiction over seven felonies committed on Indian lands.
The Crow Dog precedent, which remains good law, requires that treaties and statutes are normally interpreted in favor of retained Indian sovereignty and treaty rights. This principle is especially important in regard to nineteenth century documents that tend to contain many ambiguities. In areas such as the retained rights to hunt and fish, for example, the Crow Dog decision often helped Native American lawyers prevail in court.