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.

  1. an Indian is a “person” within the meaning of the laws of the United StatesUnited States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook, 25 F. Cas. 695 (C.C.D. Neb. 1879) (court opinion text via Harvard Caselaw Access Project)
  2. 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)
  3. out of five hundred and eighty-one Indians who went from the reservation in Dakota to the Indian TerritoryUnited 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.

Treaty or agreementShapes from the 1899 federal record: approximate, not legal boundaries.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Working with these nations

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 3

Concerns the instrument 1

Policy era 1

Nations named 1

Decided a dispute over 1

Sources

  1. law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0025.f.cas/0025.f.cas.0695.pdflegal text copy
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

Correct this record