Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights

Court case

Elk v. Wilkins

The Court held that an Indian born into a tribe, who then left it, was not a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Citation
112 U.S. 94 (1884)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1884
Nations
Individual born into a tribe (John Elk)
Treaty at issue
none
Effect on land rights
eroded

What happened

John Elk, an Indian, said he had severed his tribal relations and fully surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States. He lived in Omaha, Nebraska. On or about April 5, 1880, he went to Charles Wilkins, the registrar for one ward of the city, to be registered to vote in the city election held on April 6. Wilkins refused. Elk sued in federal court. He relied on the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

The Supreme Court ruled against him. It held that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up residence among the white citizens of a State, "but who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen, either by the United States or by the State," is not a citizen under the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court read "subject to the jurisdiction" to mean "completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." Indians born as members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes, it said, are "no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'" than the children born in the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers.

Congress changed the rule by statute. An Act of June 2, 1924 declared all non-citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States to be citizens, without impairing any Indian's right to tribal or other property.

Good to know. The Court's reasoning about tribal allegiance reflects the 1884 opinion, not current law, which is set by statute.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. but who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen, either by the United States or by the StateElk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegianceElk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the unitedAct of June 2, 1924, 43 Stat. 253 (Indian citizenship), U.S. Statutes at Large (govinfo)

Research notes. The 1924 statute's printed text is in two columns; the quote above is a fragment of the extracted text. The Court's words about tribes owing allegiance reflect the 1884 opinion's reasoning, not current law, which is set by statute. Our data says no treaty or land is at issue, which matches the opinion.

Who is doing the work

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 2

Policy era 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
A man born into a recognized tribe who left it and lived among non-Indians, without naturalization or federal recognition as a citizen, was not a Fourteenth Amendment citizen. Citizenship was later conferred by statute (1924).
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record