page_title: United States v. Kagama
section_title: Opinion of the Court
hierarchical_section_title: United States v. Kagama / Supreme Court / Opinion of the Court
caption_attribution_description: Samuel Freeman Miller. Library of Congress description: "Miller, Judge S.F. (Supreme Court)".
context_page_description: United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. This Congressional act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain cases of Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if the crimes were committed on an Indian reservation. Kagama, a Yurok Native American accused of murder, was selected as a test case by the Department of Justice to test the constitutionality of the Act.
  The importance of the ruling in this case was that it tested the constitutionality of the Act and confirmed Congress' authority over Indian affairs. Plenary power over Indian tribes, supposedly granted to the U.S. Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, was not deemed necessary to support the Supreme Court in this decision; instead, the Court found the power in the tribes' status as dependent domestic nations. This allowed Congress to pass the Dawes Act the following year. The case has been criticized by legal scholars as drawing on powers that are not granted to Congress by the Constitution. It remains good law, despite that criticism.
context_section_description: In a unanimous decision issued at the end of May 1886, and authored by Justice Samuel Freeman Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Major Crimes Act was constitutional, and, therefore, the case was within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.  Miller dismissed the argument that the Act was proper under the Indian Commerce Clause, noting that the case did not present a commerce issue. He held instead that it was necessary since Indians were wards of the United States. Justice Miller was known for writing opinions that supported federal power over state's rights.  This ruling meant that the federal circuit court's indictment would stand and the case would proceed to trial back in Northern California.
  The opinion drew heavily on the language of the Solicitor General's brief, which by today's standards would be considered by many as racially charged. The language in Miller's opinion is infamous for its description of Indian tribes as weak, degraded and dependent on the federal government for support.  He adopts language from Cherokee Nation v. Georgia describing each tribe as a "ward" and in a state of "pupilage."
  Miller, having dismissed the Indian Commerce Clause as a source of authority, did not cite another constitutional source of the power.  In effect, this decision contended that the U.S. government had supreme authority to enforce laws within its borders, but did not mention where this power was outlined in the Constitution.  From the time the crime occurred to the Supreme Court decision, eleven months had passed.
caption: Justice Miller, author of the opinion
exif: {}