United States v. Kagama
United States v. Kagama is a significant Supreme Court case that arose in the context of Native American sovereignty and federal authority. Following the 1883 Supreme Court ruling in Ex parte Crow Dog, which determined that tribal law governed crimes committed by Native Americans in Indian country, Congress enacted the Major Crimes Act in 1885. This legislation granted federal courts jurisdiction over specific serious crimes committed by Native Americans. In Kagama, the Supreme Court upheld the Major Crimes Act, affirming that the federal government had the authority to legislate regarding Native American affairs, a power rooted in the U.S. Constitution. The ruling emphasized the government's obligation to protect Native Americans, echoing principles established in the earlier Worcester v. Georgia case. This decision has had lasting implications for the legal relationship between Native American tribes and federal authority, highlighting ongoing discussions around tribal sovereignty and the complexities of jurisdiction in Indian country. The case remains a foundational point of reference in understanding the legal landscape governing Native American rights and federal oversight.
United States v. Kagama
Date: May 10, 1886
Citation: 118 U.S. 375
Issue: Native American sovereignty
Significance: The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the power to apply federal criminal statutes to Native Americans within tribal lands.
In Ex parte Crow Dog (1883), the Supreme Court decided that tribal law applied to crimes committed by Native Americans in Indian country. Congress reacted by passing the Major Crimes Act in 1885, giving federal courts authority over seven major crimes, including murder, committed by Native Americans against Native Americans. The Court unanimously upheld the statute, applying the principles laid down by Chief Justice John Marshall in Worcester v. Georgia (1832) to the federal criminal statutes. The Court found that the Worcester principles meant that protection of Native Americans was a national obligation and sustained Congress’s power to legislate. Although the Court found the common-law guardian-ward notion from Worcester appropriate, Congress’s authority derived from the Constitution. Worcester continues to be cited as appropriate law governing Native American affairs.
