Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Kagama

Supreme Court of the United States · 1886 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFederal Indian LawCongressional PowerFederal Criminal JurisdictionIndian tribesreservationsfederal jurisdictionmajor crimes

Facts

Two Indians, Kagama and Mahawaha, were indicted for murdering another Indian on the Hoopa Valley Reservation in Humboldt County, California. The victim and the accused were Indians of the reservation and sustained the usual tribal relations. The indictment relied on § 9 of the Act of March 3, 1885, which subjected Indians committing certain listed crimes, including murder, to federal or territorial criminal law depending on where the offense occurred. The certified questions asked whether Congress could constitutionally make one Indian's murder of another Indian on a reservation within a State punishable in federal court.

Issue

May Congress constitutionally subject an Indian who murders another Indian on an Indian reservation within a State to trial and punishment in the courts of the United States? More broadly, is § 9 of the Act of March 3, 1885 a valid exercise of federal power in both its territorial and state-reservation branches?

Rule

Congress may enact and enforce criminal laws punishing Indians for crimes committed against other Indians on reservations, including reservations within the limits of a State, because Indian tribes are dependent communities and wards of the nation, owing no allegiance to the States and receiving no protection from them, and the national government has a corresponding duty and power of protection. This authority does not rest on the Commerce Clause as a regulation of commerce, but on the United States' sovereignty and longstanding guardianship over tribes within its territorial limits.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

On the Red Mesa Reservation in Arizona, Noah Tewa, an enrolled tribal member living on the reservation, allegedly killed Lena Pike, another enrolled member of the same tribe, during a dispute at a family gathering. Congress has enacted a statute providing that Indians who commit murder against another Indian within a state reservation are subject to trial in federal court under federal criminal law.

If Noah argues that Congress lacks constitutional authority because the reservation lies inside Arizona, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority upheld federal jurisdiction over murder committed by one Indian against another on a reservation within a State. The authority does not depend on state consent or exclusive state control, and the Court expressly rejected the Commerce Clause as the source of this criminal-law power. Instead, the rule rests on the tribes' status as dependent communities and wards of the nation, together with the United States' duty and power of protection.