Habeas Corpus in Indian Country

Item set

• 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (1868)
  The Fourteenth Amendment gave citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. The Equal Protection clause drastically amended the Constitution and has been used by the Supreme Court to justify expansion of rights. The amendment was passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868.
• Albert Wiley v. Moses Keokuk (1869)
  In this case, Moses Keokuk, a chief of the Sac and Fox Nation, successfully used habeas corpus to free himself from the arrest and detention of a U.S. Indian Agent after he left the Sac and Fox reservation without authorization. When a lower court ordered his release, the agent appealed the case to the Kansas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, acknowledging the mobility and autonomy of Native Americans.
• Constitution of the United States of America (1787)
  The Constitution of the United States of America outlines the structure of the United States Government. This document is the foundation of United States' laws. Article 1 provides directions for the legislative branch and the basic differences between the two legislative bodies. Article 2 outlines the role of the Executive Branch of government, led by the President. The document gives significant power to the legislative branch and limits the power of the executive. Article 3 organizes the Judicial Branch and gives it the authority to keep the other branches adherent to the Constitution. Article 4 provides description on the interaction between states and the federal government. The Constitution provides minimal guidance for each branch of government, but also provides methods to amend it.
• Discussions of Habeas Corpus in the Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (1845-1905)
  In this collection of reports to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Indian agents wrote of their concerns regarding the use of habeas in and beyond Indian Country. While the majority of lower court records are unpublished and unindexed, these reports compiling the complaints and summaries of agents accounting for every reservation within the U.S. provides insight into the presence of Indigenous litigants and defendants in the legal system.
• Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883)
  Ex Parte Crow Dog was a Supreme Court case that asserted the federal government's role in criminal jurisdiction on tribal lands. The Court held that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Native peoples against one another on tribal land. The Court's decision in this case affirmed tribal sovereignty, leading to the passage of the Indian Major Crimes Act two years later, which brought certain crimes committed on tribal lands under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
• Habeas Corpus in Indian Country
  This teaching module explains the extensive presence of Native Americans in U.S. courts and American law in Indian Country throughout the nineteenth century, with a particular focus on habeas corpus petitions.
• In the Matter of the Application of Standing Bear et al. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1879)
  Standing Bear's writ of habeas corpus showed implications for citizenship, land dispossession, and human rights.
• Indian Major Crimes Act (1885)
  The Indian Major Crimes Act brought certain crimes committed on tribal lands under the jurisdiction of the United States federal government, weakening tribal sovereignty.
• Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790
  The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts had important economic, legal, and political implications in the Early Republic. A key feature of the legislation was the recognition of tribal sovereignty and legal jurisdiction.
• Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1793
  The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts had important economic, legal, and political implications in the Early Republic. A key feature of the legislation was the recognition of tribal sovereignty and legal jurisdiction.
• Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1796
  The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts had important economic, legal, and political implications in the Early Republic. A key feature of the legislation was the recognition of tribal sovereignty and legal jurisdiction.
• Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834
  The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts had important economic, legal, and political implications in the Early Republic. A key feature of the legislation was the recognition of tribal sovereignty and legal jurisdiction.
• John Heo v. Robert H. Milroy (1880)
  In this habeas suit, John Heo was arrested by an Indian agent after he refused to reside on the reservation with his wife and children. Heo argued that he had severed his tribal relations, as had his parents, and that they never lived on a reservation or accepted government annuities. Despite "constantly living with the whites engaged in the pursuits of civilized life" and having "at no time lived with any tribe of Indians" or "acknowledged himself a member of any Indian tribe," the judge ruled in favor of the Indian agent, and Heo remained in custody.
• McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020)
  In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court found that the lands in eastern Oklahoma were under the legal jurisdiction of the tribal nations. This decision reestablished tribal sovereignty for the Five Tribes, the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee Creek, and Seminole.
• United States v. Rogers (1846)
  In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a white man who claimed citizenship of the Cherokee Nation through domicile and marriage was not an "Indian" within the meaning of the law.
• United States, ex rel. Standing Bear, v. George Crook (1879)
  In this case, Judge Elmer S. Dundy ruled that "an Indian is a person within the meaning of the laws of the United States," and that they were entitled to the right of expatriation. Standing Bear and 29 other Ponca had left their reservation in Indian Territory without the permission of the federal government and returned to Nebraska. They were later arrested and petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted. Judge Dundy's opinion led to the release of the Ponca petitioners.