 Code Noir (1687) |
|
A set of laws in French colonies that regulated the lives of enslaved and free black people. The code primarily defined slavery, but it also expelled all Jewish people from French colonies and required Black people to be Catholic and not protestant. The Code Noir demonstrates the way enslaved people's lives were regulated under French colonial rule.
|
| Constitution And By-Laws of the Sac and Fox Tribe of Missouri (1937) |
|
As part of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Native American tribes were encouraged to create tribal governments that mirrored the United States government. Many of the tribes' constitutions were essentially the same.
|
| Elk v. Wilkins (1884) |
|
In Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court denied United States citizenship to Native Americans. Newspapers at the time identified John Elk as Winnebago, however, he had renounced his tribal allegiance and resided off-reservation in Omaha, Nebraska. Elk brought his case before the court when he attempted to register to vote and was denied. He claimed birthright citizenship as defined by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was heard before both Circuit and District judges, and when they could not agree on a ruling, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that despite severing tribal ties and living amongst white citizens, Elk could not claim birthright citizenship.
|
| Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Seven years earlier the Court had ruled a similar state law unconstitutional in Stenberg v. Carhart.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Agnes Smith for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1921) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Agnes Smith shows legal challenges on the part of women in the early twentieth century from carceral confinement. After she was committed to an institute for "feeble-minded youth," Agnes' parents attempted to regain custody of her. The court denied the writ, claiming that Agnes was a "fit and proper subject" for the institution.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Andrew J. Sawyer for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Chin Tu Ling, Lee Shun, and Look Fung (1898) |
|
In this case, three Chinese girls between the ages of 15 and 18 used habeas corpus to free themselves from the custody of the Mee Lee Wah Village Company responsible for developing the Chinese Village for the Trans-Mississippi and International Exposition in Omaha. The judge found that the girls were being kept for "immoral purposes" and were remanded to the custody of a missionary doctor who would make arrangements for their return to China. After this judgment, the company filed their own petition for a writ of habeas corpus in an attempt to re-establish custody of the girls, who, they argued, owed a contractual obligation to the corporation until the close of the exposition. In this second case, the judge released the girls into the custody of the Mee Lee Wah Village Company so that they could fulfill their contracts.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Claus Hubbard for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1898) |
|
In this case, a prominent member of Omaha's 3rd Ward was arrested for vagrancy. To challenge his wrongful arrest, Claus Hubbard petitioned for habeas corpus, arguing that he was targeted by police because of his activism in the community. Hubbard frequently provided legal advisement and bail to African Americans facing indiscriminate arrests. The court agreed, ordering his release and also admonishing the police for violating the constitutional liberties of citizens.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Gussie Burns for Writ of Habeas Corpus (1920) |
|
In this case, Gussie Burns was arrested for vagrancy, found guilty, and sentenced to 30 days in the county jail. After her sentencing, she was subjected to a physical examination and reportedly found to have venereal disease. As a result, she was sent to the Omaha Women's Detention Home for treatment. After being confined to the home for four months, Gussie petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that her 30 day sentence had long since passed, the disease she was alleged to have did not exist, and that officials would not release her until she consented to "an operation for the removal of certain tubes." A writ was granted, though the outcome of her case is unknown. Cases like Gussie's illustrate the legal sophistication of women in the face of attempts to subordinate them during the Progressive Era.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Mary Marshall, mother of William Marshall an Infant, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1886) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Mary Marshall shows legal challenges related to carceral confinement and child custody in the nineteenth century. After being abandoned by her husband, a mother and her three children were forced to enter a charitable home. When one child became ill, he was given to the custody of a physician. The court ruled that custody of the child was lawful, but that in six months time, the mother could petition to amend or modify the judge's order.
|
| 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.
|
| More Than a Snapshot: Will Brown's Lynching and the Violence of History |
|
This teaching module discusses the history racial violence in the Midwest, featuring a webinar with Ashley Howard, author of the 2025 book, Midwest Unrest: 1960s Urban Rebellions and the Black Freedom Movement.
|
| Nebraska Abortion Statute (1873) |
|
The Nebraska state statute regarding abortion reflects the diverse landscape of abortion law in the nineteenth century. This lengthy law punished individuals for helping pregnant women obtain a miscarriage.
|
| Nebraska Abortion Statute (1929) |
|
This Nebraska state statute regarding abortion reflects the diverse landscape of abortion law before Roe v. Wade. This law punished individuals for helping pregnant women obtain a miscarriage.
|
| Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative (2008) |
|
This amendment to the Nebraska Constitution banned the use of affirmative action in the "operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." It was initiated as a ballot measure that was approved in 2008.
|
| Nebraska Vagrancy Law (1881) |
|
Vagrancy acts passed by the Nebraska state legislature reflected race-neutral legal language that was used to target the poor, people of color, and women.
|
| Nebraska Vagrancy Law (1929) |
|
Vagrancy acts passed by the Nebraska state legislature reflected race-neutral legal language that was used to target the poor, people of color, and women.
|
| Omaha Grapples with its Ugly Past (2019) |
|
This article looks at the legacy of the lynching of Will Brown, featuring interviews with prominent, Black Omaha community members Preston Love and Ernie Chambers, as well as University of Nebraska-Omaha Urban studies professor, Barbara Hewins-Maroney.
|
 Omaha's Riot in Story & Pictures (1919) |
|
This series of photographs document the race riot in Omaha that culminated in the lynching of Will Brown in front of the Douglas County Courthouse. In the first, as many as 20,000 people gather outside an already damaged courthouse. In the second, white rioters smile around the remains of the police car they had set ablaze. And in the third, federal troops guard the intersection of 24th and Lake streets, an area with a large number of Black homes and businesses.
|
| Public Law 280 (1953) |
|
This law gave California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin criminal and civil jurisdiction on Indian reservations, as the U.S. government resolved to terminate the special trustee relationship tribes held with the United States, eroding tribal sovereignty.
|
| Remembering a dark past, renewing resolve for the future (2019) |
|
This article from the Omaha World Herald describes Omaha's official observance of the 100-year anniversary of the lynching of Will Brown. Omaha Mayor, Jean Stothert, spoke at the commemoration calling Will Brown's lynching one of the darkest days in our history.
|
| State of Nebraska, ex rel. Daniel Freeman, v. John Scheve et al. (1902) |
|
In this case, Daniel Freeman, recognized as the first homesteader under the 1862 Homestead Act, made a public grievance over the use of the Bible in a public school near Beatrice. When the teacher refused to cease using the Bible, offering prayers, and singing hymns in her classroom, Freeman took his case to the school board, who defended the teacher. He then took his case to the courts. The lower court also sided with the teacher, and he appealed the case to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The higher court found that the actions of the teacher and the school board violated the provisions in Nebraska's constitution regarding the separation of church and state. The U.S. Supreme Court did not make a similar ruling until 1962 in Engel v. Vitale.
|
| Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court found that a Nebraska state ban on partial-birth abortion was unconstitutional, as it failed to include a health exception and imposed an "undue burden" on people seeking abortions.
|
 The Lynching of Will Brown (1919) |
|
The day after the lynching of Will Brown, the Omaha Bee devoted the first two pages of its edition to the racial terror violence enacted by a mob of white Omahans. The articles on these pages provide different perspective of the race riot, from the crowds cheering at the destruction of government buildings, to the alleged assault victim's shock at the incident. The newspaper also featured a list of victims of the mob.
|
| United States v. Yellow Sun (1870) |
|
In this case, a federal court in Nebraska debated the question of federal or state jurisdiction over Native Americans suspected of a crime committed outside a reservation. The court held that there were no treaty rights or congressional provisions that required federal jurisdiction, therefore states had jurisdiction over crimes committed within its boundaries unless on tribal land. They also held that because crimes committed on tribal lands were not in violation of any federal laws, the state had civil and criminal jurisdiction over tribal lands.
|
| 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.
|