Document: 430 U.S. 641 97 S.Ct. 1395 51 L.Ed.2d 701 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Gabriel Francis ANTELOPE et al. No. 75-661. Argued Jan. 18, 1977. Decided April 19, Syllabus Respondents, enrolled Coeur d'Alene Indians, were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of burglary, robbery, and murder non-Indian within the boundaries their reservation. One respondent was convicted second-degree only; other two all three crimes as charged, including first-degree under felony-murder provisions federal-enclave statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1111, made applicable to Indians Major Crimes Act, 1153. The Court Appeals reversed ground that respondents had been denied constitutional rights equal protection component Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. court agreed with respondents' contention convictions racially discriminatory since charged same crime would have subject prosecution only Idaho law, which premeditation deliberation be proved, whereas no such elements required 1111. Held : Respondent not deprived laws. Pp. 645-650. (a) criminal statutes enforced here are based neither in whole nor part upon impermissible racial classifications. Federal regulation Indian tribes is rooted unique status "a separate people" own political institutions, viewed legislation " 'racial' group consisting 'Indians'. . ." Morton v. Mancari, 417 535, 553 n. 24, 94 2474, 2484, 41 290. 645-647. (b) challenged do otherwise violate protection. Respondents subjected body law any individuals, or non-Indian, committed enclave. Congress has undoubted power prescribe code country, disparity between significance. 647-650. 523 F.2d 400, remanded. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D. C., for petitioner. John W. Walker, Moscow, Idaho, Leonard William Davison. Allen V. Bowles, Gabriel Antelope. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 question presented our grant certiorari whether, circumstances this case, Clause Amendment subjecting individuals virtue Indians. 2 (1) 3 On night February 1974, respondents, broke into home Emma Johnson, an 81-year-old Worley, Idaho; they robbed killed Mrs. Johnson. Because Reservation, jurisdiction 1153.1 They were, accordingly, murder.2 Davison only. Antelope found guilty 1111,3 4 (2) 5 In United States Ninth Circuit, contended unlawful products invidious discrimination. argued precisely offense, namely another country,4 contrast does contain provision.5 To establish state court, therefore, prove deliberation. No 6 difference concluded "put at serious racially-based disadvantage," 406 (1975), Government prosecution. This disparity, so concluded, violated requirements implicit Amendment. We granted States' petition certiorari, 424 907, 96 1100, 47 311 (1976), we reverse. (3) 7 decisions leave doubt respect tribes, although relating such, Quite contrary, classifications expressly singling out subjects provided Constitution6 supported ensuing history Government's relations 8 "Indian aggregations possessing attributes sovereignty over both members territory, Worcester Georgia, 31 515, Pet. 557, L.Ed. 483 (1832); 'a people' 'the regulating internal social ..' Mazurie, 419 544, 95 710, 717, 42 706 (1975). 9 Legislation these "unique aggregations" repeatedly sustained against claims upholding limited employment preference Bureau Affairs, said 552, 2483, 290 (1974): 10 "Literally every piece dealing reservations single(s) special treatment constituency tribal living near reservations. If laws deemed discrimination, entire Title Code (25 U.S.C.) effectively erased .." 11 light result, unanimously Mancari 12 "The preference, applied, discrete group, but, rather, quasi-sovereign entities Id., 554, S.Ct., 2484. 13 Last Term, Fisher District Court, 382, 943, 106 held Northern Cheyenne Tribe could access Montana State courts connection adoption proceeding arising Unlike plaintiffs being benefit privilege available non-Indians; nevertheless, unanimous dismissed claim discrimination: 14 "(W)e reject argument denying (the plaintiffs) constitutes exclusive Tribal derive from race plaintiff but rather law." U.S., 390, 948. 15 Both involved preferences disabilities directly promoting interests self-government, present case dealing, matters self-regulation, conduct country implicating interests. But principles reaffirmed point more broadly conclusion affairs Rather, institutions. governance once-sovereign communities; it 'Indians' supra, Indeed, because Tribe.7 therefore conclude 16 (4) 17 protection.8 previously observed Act enjoy procedural benefits privileges persons jurisdiction. Keeble States, 412 205, 212, 93 1993, 1997, 36 844 (1973). See 3242. individual, enclave.9 not, contend otherwise. There remains, then, basis claim.10 Since Kagama, 118 375, 1109, 30 228 (1886), consequence scheme differs Idaho. Under system, National when its evenhanded,11 regardless matter.12 19 treated manner jurisdiction, pursuant regulatory did erect classifications; hence, violation infected convictions.13 20 judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 21 Reversed 1153 time pertinent part: "Any who commits person property following offenses, namely, murder, manslaughter, rape, carnal knowledge female, his wife, attained age sixteen years, assault intent commit incest, dangerous weapon, resulting bodily injury, arson, larceny shall penalties committing above States." background leading up enactment discussed 209-212, 1996-1998, As noted characterized carefully intrusion punish land." 209, 1996. Except offenses enumerated courts. 1152. Not however. McBratney, 104 621, 26 869 (1882), non-Indians law. 1111 statute. It provides "(a) Murder killing human malice aforethought. Every perpetrated poison, lying wait, kind willful, deliberate, malicious, premeditated killing; perpetration of, attempt perpetrate, robbery; design unlawfully maliciously effect death than him killed, first degree. second degree." should emphasized felony 2, supra. ostensibly extends occurring except However, cases followed, construed 1152 predecessors applying non-Indians. Thus, correctly that, perpetrators non-Indians, charges. definition murder: "All means torture, wilful, deliberate Any peace officer municipal corporation subdivision thereof, acting line duty, All kinds 18-4003 (Supp.1976). Article I, 8, Constitution gives "(t)o regulate Commerce foreign Nations, among several tribes." true apply "many classified 'Indians.' offered proof thus emancipated relations. Moreover, whose official terminated congressional longer subject, status, Act. Heath, 509 16, (C.A.9 1974) ("While anthropologically Klamath even after Termination obviously remains Indian, vis-a-vis exists"). addition, members, confines defined 1151. elsewhere Puyallup Department Game, 391 392, 397 11, 88 1725, 1728, 689 (1968). noted, however, enrollment tribe absolute requirement least where defendant lived reservation "maintained thereon." Ex parte Pero, 99 28, (C.A.7 1938). also Ives, 504 935, 953 (dicta). called decide whether nonenrolled 1153, intimate views matter. Other create classification, seriously application irrational deny infra. point, Congress' relinquishment six 1162. 1162 simply one manifestation continuing concern welfare guardianship. adopting 1162, singled certain remain selective approach reinforces, undermines, directed toward necessary appropriate guardianship Constitution. extend crimes, perpetrator victim, enclaves, military installations, vessels high seas. reservation, much §§ opinions recognized differ respects statute encompassing (1882); see Surplus Trading Co. Cook, 281 647, 651, 50 455, 456, 74 1091 (1930); Williams Lee, 358 217, 219-220, 79 269, 270-271, 251 (1959); McClanahan Arizona Tax Comm'n, 411 164, 171, 1257, 1262-1263, 129 single such; defendants covered if victim member tribe. base assumption disadvantaged prosecuted view, likely fact prosecutors premeditation. evidence adduced trial might well finding deliberation, beaten kicked Johnson during course planned robbery. consistently upheld regulations aimed solely opposed See, e. g., Holliday, 70 407, 417-418, Wall. 182 (1866); Perrin 232 478, 482, 34 387, 389, 58 691 (1914). Rosebud Sioux Kneip, 584, 613-615, 47, 1361, 1376, 660. itself support specifically tribes. 6, "singles proper legislation." 2483. regard, concerned instances tried differing burdens those offense. Compare Big Crow, 955 (C.A.8 1975), cert. denied, 920, 1126, 327 Cleveland, 503 1067 1974), Analla, 490 1204 (C.A.10), vacated remanded, 813, 40 (1974). (1976 ed.) (which uniform injury). That issue before us, it. may argued, Court's holding Seymour Superintendent, 368 351, 82 424, 346 (1962), conviction void want Seymour, Colville attempted burglary country. reversing conviction, held: "Since petitioner occurred (Indian) Washington try offense." 359, 429. then constitute meaningful reference establishing accepted contentions, bases enclaves demand prosecutions governed extent "lenient" authorize gamesmanship. rule, assuming workability, flatly inconsistent Supremacy Constitution, Art. VI, cl. 2.

Category: 1