Statute

Major Crimes Act

Congress's 1885 Major Crimes Act put serious crimes by Indians in Indian country into federal courts, a power the Supreme Court upheld in 1886.

Citation: Act of Mar. 3, 1885, ch. 341, 23 Stat. 362 (section 9, 23 Stat. 385), now 18 U.S.C. 1153
Year: 1885
Effect on land rights: eroded

What happened

In 1883 the Supreme Court decided Ex parte Crow Dog. Crow Dog, a Brule Sioux, had been sentenced to death by a Dakota district court for killing Spotted Tail, also a Brule Sioux, in Indian country. The Court asked whether an existing statute that excluded such crimes from United States jurisdiction had been repealed. It found no clear expression of congressional intent to repeal it, held the trial court "without jurisdiction," and ordered the writs of habeas corpus issued.

In the Indian Appropriation Act of March 3, 1885, Congress added a section, section 9, that went the other way. It provided that Indians who commit murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary or larceny against another Indian or other person, within a Territory, "either within or without an Indian reservation," would be subject to the laws of that Territory and tried in the same courts as everyone else. The same section said Indians committing those crimes within an Indian reservation inside a State would be tried in the same courts as other persons committing them "within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States."

In United States v. Kagama (1886), the Supreme Court held that section valid and constitutional. It reasoned that, from the Indians' weakness and helplessness, "there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power."

The Act survives as 18 U.S.C. 1153, which today lists a longer set of offenses. It matters on the ground: in McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) the Court held that land reserved for the Creek Nation remains "Indian country" for purposes of the Major Crimes Act.

Good to know. Congress passed the Act after Crow Dog, but no source shown says it was a response to that case.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 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.

the first district court of Dakota was without jurisdiction to find or try the indictment against the prisonerEx parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), Cornell LII
either within or without an Indian reservation, shall be subject therefor to the laws of such TerritoryIndian Appropriation Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 362, section 9
there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power.United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886), U.S. Reports
land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains “Indian country.”McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526 (U.S. July 9, 2020), Cornell LII

Research notes. No opened source states that Congress passed the 1885 Act in response to Crow Dog; the narrative gives the sequence only. Section 9 as enacted in 1885 had two clauses: one for Territories (territorial law and courts) and one for reservations within States (the same courts as crimes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States).