Court case
Standing Bear v. Crook
In 1879 a federal judge held that an Indian is a "person" who may seek habeas corpus, and discharged Standing Bear and his companions.
- Citation
- United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook, 25 F. Cas. 695 (C.C.D. Neb. 1879) (No. 14,891)
- Court
- U.S. Circuit Court, D. Neb. (Judge Dundy)
- Year
- 1879
- Nations
- Ponca Tribe (Standing Bear and companions)
- Treaty at issue
- Ponca treaties of 1858 and 1865; 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty mistakenly assigned Ponca land to the Sioux
- Effect on land rights
- advanced
What happened
Standing Bear and twenty-five others, Ponca Indians, were arrested on the Omaha Indian reservation on the orders of General George Crook, who commanded the Department of the Platte. The order, issued at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, was to return them by force to their tribe in the Indian Territory. On April 8, 1879, they petitioned the federal court at Lincoln for a writ of habeas corpus.
Judge Elmer Dundy recounted the background. The Poncas made a treaty with the United States on March 12, 1858, ceding all land except one tract. A treaty of March 10, 1865 ceded part of that reservation and substituted other lands. Then a treaty with the Sioux, signed April 29, 1868, completely absolved the reservations set apart for the Poncas. "This was done without consultation with, or knowledge or consent on the part of, the Ponca tribe of Indians."
Standing Bear testified that of 581 Ponca who went to the Indian Territory, 158 died within a year or so. To save the survivors of his family, he determined to leave and return to his old home.
Dundy concluded that "an Indian is a 'person' within the meaning of the laws of the United States," and so may seek a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court. He found no treaty or law that authorized removing the relators by force to the Indian Territory. He ordered them discharged from custody.
Good to know. The treaty and removal facts are as the judge recounted them; the Ponca Tribe's own account may differ.
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.
an Indian is a “person” within the meaning of the laws of the United States
United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook, 25 F. Cas. 695 (C.C.D. Neb. 1879) (court opinion text via Harvard Caselaw Access Project)This was done without consultation with, or knowledge or consent on the part of, the Ponca tribe of Indians.
United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook, 25 F. Cas. 695 (C.C.D. Neb. 1879) (court opinion text via Harvard Caselaw Access Project)out of five hundred and eighty-one Indians who went from the reservation in Dakota to the Indian Territory
United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook, 25 F. Cas. 695 (C.C.D. Neb. 1879) (court opinion text via Harvard Caselaw Access Project)
Research notes. The treaty and removal facts are as the judge recounted them; the Ponca Tribe's own account may differ. The case.law reporter text has OCR errors (for example the 1858 treaty year). Citation 25 F. Cas. 695 matches the case.law record.
Who is doing the work
This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:
- Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes
- Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming
- Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
- Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota
- Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana
- Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota
- Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota
- Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska
Working with these nations
- Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes Nation government Seeking return of about 6,700 acres at Fort Reno
- Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Sicangu Oyate) Nation government Pe' Sla (1,942 acres, Nov 30, 2012)
- Right Relationship Boulder (Land Group) Native-led Funds tribal youth camps and gatherings, plant-gathering access, trail content with tribes, pushes for tribal… Give on their site Website
- Owamniyomni Okhodayapi (formerly Friends of the Falls) Native-led Dakota-led restoration and return of care for sacred St. Anthony Falls (Owamniyomni) site in Minneapolis, with… Give on their site Website
- Indian Land Tenure Foundation (ILTF) Native-led Land recovery and control by tribes and individual Indian landowners Website
- Lakota People's Law Project (program of Sacred Defense Fund) Native-led Legal advocacy Give on their site Website
Native legal and land defense, nationally
- Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Native-led Litigation and legal advocacy for tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, land and resources Give on their site Website
- NDN Collective (LANDBACK Campaign) Native-led LANDBACK campaign (launched 2020; Mount Rushmore closure and return of Black Hills public lands), Indigenous… Give on their site Website
- Decolonizing Wealth Project (Indigenous Earth Fund; California Tribal Land Return) Native-led Reparative philanthropy Give on their site Website
- Honor the Earth Native-led Pipeline resistance, sovereignty, energy justice Give on their site Website
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 3
Concerns the instrument 1
Policy era 1
- Reservation1851suggested
Nations named 1
- Poncasuggested
Decided a dispute over 1
Sources
The record’s fields
- Holding
- An Indian is a 'person' entitled to petition for habeas corpus, and no treaty or statute authorized forcibly removing peaceable Ponca to Indian Territory against their will; the relators were discharged.
- Kind
- Court case
- Confidence
- High