Kansas Act of 1940

Last updated

The Kansas Act of 1940 [1] addressed the means by which Congress could use its power under the Indian Commerce Clause to authorize a state's ability to exercise jurisdiction in certain instances. Because the inherent sovereignty of Indian nations generally precluded state jurisdiction over Indian country, [2] the Act became one of the first legislative actions to permit state jurisdiction over most offenses committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations. This was a departure from previous federal policy in which the Federal Government had sole jurisdiction over Indians. The Act was a precursor to the Indian termination policy and in essence was a kind of "trial legislation" to see if such transfers would be effective. [3] Several other states followed suit. Today, the jurisdictional gap which existed when the Kansas Act was passed no longer exists, and instead there is an overlap; a native person committing a single crime within Indian country in the state of Kansas could be prosecuted by the United States, the State of Kansas, and one of the tribes. [4]

Contents

Background

In March 1938, Potawatomi Agency Superintendent Bruce contacted federal legislators from Kansas and proposed a bill for Kansas to obtain jurisdiction over criminal cases on Indian lands in Kansas. There was a perception that because, at that time, none of the four tribes — Potawatomi, Kickapoo, Sac & Fox, Iowa [5] — had tribal courts to deal with offenses, [6] lawlessness would prevail if the state were not allowed jurisdiction over crimes that were not federal offenses. In addition, because of the allotment program, approximately 80,000 acres (320 km2) of Indian land had been assigned to tribal members and were in state jurisdiction, while only about 35,000 acres (140 km2) of Indian land were held in the federal trust. [7]

Bruce cited six reasons the Federal Government might support the transfer:

Up until this time, Kansas had exercised jurisdiction over offenses, including those listed in the Indian Major Crimes Act, but when that authority was called into question, the state sought clarification of its authority. Accordingly, the stated purpose of the act was to "merely confirm a relationship which the State has willingly assumed, which the Indians have willingly accepted, and which has produced successful results, over a considerable period of years." [9]

It is unclear if Bruce exerted influence on the tribes to accept a complete transfer to state jurisdiction, or if the tribes proposed it to Bruce, but within a short time frame, all four tribes passed resolutions to transfer criminal jurisdiction on Indian lands to state courts from federal courts. The Kickapoo resolution was dated February 24, 1938, the Sac & Fox and Iowa resolutions were dated March 1, 1938 and the Potawatomi resolution was dated March 4, 1938.

Within days of the adoption of the tribal resolutions, United States Representative William P. Lambertson introduced House Resolution 9757, "A bill to relinquish jurisdiction to the State of Kansas to prosecute Indians or others for offenses committed on Indian reservations." Within two years, this bill would lead to the Kansas Act of 1940. [10]

The 1938 version of the bill would have given Kansas state authorities exclusive jurisdiction over criminal offenses occurring on reservations, prevented federal prosecution and punishment of major crimes in Indian country, and prevented the Federal Government from asserting authority within Kansas under the General Crimes Act. [11]

Enactment

On January 5, 1939, House Resolution 3048 and Senate Bill 372 were introduced and lawmakers were advised that the proposal was supported by the Indian tribes. This may not have been the case with all of the tribes as both telegrams and letters indicate that correspondence between Potawatomi Business Council Chairman Wahbnosah [12] and Representative W. Rogers[ clarification needed ] shows the Potawatomi were objecting. The correspondence is not part of the legislative record, but instead housed in the National Archives and may or may not have been brought to the attention of the rest of the Congress. [13] However, it is significant, as one of the letters points out that, "The Business Committee of the Prairie Band Potawatomi tribe of Indians represents eleven-hundred of the sixteen-hundred Indians of Kansas," which means that the majority of native people were not in favor of passage. [14]

The 1938 text of the law had proposed relinquishment of "concurrent jurisdiction" by the federal government to the Kansas State government. This text was deleted by Congress as was its reference to the Indian Major Crimes Act. The changes were provided to make clear that the statute conferred to Kansas jurisdiction over more offenses than were subject to federal jurisdiction and to acknowledge, more generally, rather than listing specific citations, that the Act did not eliminate federal jurisdiction over offenses defined by federal law. [15]

In the case of Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U. S. 99 (1993), United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist affirmed the intent of the law was "that federal courts shall retain their jurisdiction to try all offenses subject to federal jurisdiction, while Kansas courts shall have jurisdiction to try persons for the same conduct when it violates state law." [16]

On June 8, 1940, the bill was passed as Title 25 U.S. Code § 217a ch. 276, 54 Stat. 249. [17] The Title 25 section was repealed and amended on 25 June 1948 to become part of the Crimes and Criminal Code statutes rather than Indians statutes. It is currently known as Title 18 U.S. Code § 3243 ch. 211, 62 Stat. 827. [18]

The Act was a precursor to the Indian termination policy and in essence was a kind of "test law," to see if such transfers would be effective. In a letter from Superintendent H.E. Bruce, of the Potawatomi Agency to U.S. Senator Arthur Capper dated 29 May 1940, Bruce wrote:

... that the Indian Office in Washington is planning to recommend similar legislation for Indian areas in other states when the plan has been tried out in Kansas. ... Based upon 27 years of Indian field experience, it is my conviction that a similar law and order setup is definitely needed over a large section of the Indian country.

— Superintendent H.E. Bruce, Letter to Senator Arthur Capper, 29 May 1940. [3]

Effects

The Kansas Act of 1940 was followed by virtually identical statutes granting jurisdiction to North Dakota and Iowa for prosecuting offenses within their state borders committed by or against Indians on certain reservations [19] and in 1948 to the state of New York. The primary difference in the New York statute was the protection of traditional hunting and fishing rights to tribal members which might be protected by treaty or agreement. [17]

The fact that state jurisdiction over most matters had occurred previous to the passage of the House concurrent resolution 108 issued 1 August 1953 was one of the reasons for including the New York, Kansas and North Dakota Indians in those marked for immediate termination. [20]

Current implications

All four tribes within Kansas now hear both civil and criminal cases in their tribal court systems. All judges, prosecutors, and public defenders are members of state bar associations. [21] The jurisdictional gap which existed when the Kansas Act was passed no longer exists. In fact, now an overlap occurs. A native person committing a single crime within Indian country, in the state of Kansas, could be prosecuted by the United States, the State of Kansas, and one of the tribes. [4]

Related Research Articles

Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal sovereignty in the United States</span> Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of Indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States.

Public Law 280 is a federal law of the United States that changes legal jurisdiction on Indian lands and over Indian persons. The law transfers some jurisdiction from the federal government to states in both civil and criminal cases in certain places. It was passed in 1953.

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case deciding that Indian tribal courts have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The case was decided on March 6, 1978 with a 6–2 majority. The court opinion was written by William Rehnquist, and a dissenting opinion was written by Thurgood Marshall, who was joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger. Justice William J. Brennan did not participate in the decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska</span> One of two federally recognized tribes of Iowa people

The Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska is one of two federally recognized tribes of Iowa people. The other is the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Gaming Regulatory Act</span> US federal law

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is a 1988 United States federal law that establishes the jurisdictional framework that governs Indian gaming. There was no federal gaming structure before this act. The stated purposes of the act include providing a legislative basis for the operation/regulation of Indian gaming, protecting gaming as a means of generating revenue for the tribes, encouraging economic development of these tribes, and protecting the enterprises from negative influences. The law established the National Indian Gaming Commission and gave it a regulatory mandate. The law also delegated new authority to the U.S. Department of the Interior and created new federal offenses, giving the U.S. Department of Justice authority to prosecute them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians</span> Tribe of Native Americans

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians are a federally recognized Potawatomi-speaking tribe based in southwestern Michigan and northeastern Indiana. Tribal government functions are located in Dowagiac, Michigan. They occupy reservation lands in a total of ten counties in the area.

Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court concluded that Indian tribes could not prosecute Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed by those nonmember Indians on their reservations. The decision was not well received by the tribes, because it defanged their criminal codes by depriving them of the power to enforce them against anyone except their own members. In response, Congress amended a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301, to include the power to "exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians" as one of the powers of self-government.

Indian termination is a phrase describing United States policies relating to Native Americans from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. It was shaped by a series of laws and practices with the intent of assimilating Native Americans into mainstream American society. Cultural assimilation of Native Americans was not new; the belief that indigenous people should abandon their traditional lives and become what the government considers "civilized" had been the basis of policy for centuries. What was new, however, was the sense of urgency that, with or without consent, tribes must be terminated and begin to live "as Americans." To that end, Congress set about ending the special relationship between tribes and the federal government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation</span>

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation is a federally recognized tribe of Neshnabé, headquartered near Mayetta, Kansas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian country jurisdiction</span>

Indian country jurisdiction, or the extent which tribal powers apply to legal situations in the United States, has undergone many drastic shifts since the beginning of European settlement in America. Over time, federal statutes and Supreme Court rulings have designated more or less power to tribal governments, depending on federal policy toward Indians. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have created important precedents in Indian country jurisdiction, such as Worcester v. Georgia, Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, Montana v. United States, and McGirt v. Oklahoma.

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska</span> Sauk and Meskwaki tribe based in Kansas

The Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska is one of three federally recognized Native American tribes of Sac and Meskwaki (Fox) peoples. Their name for themselves is Nemahahaki and they are an Algonquian people and Eastern Woodland culture.

Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that followed the death of one member of a Native American tribe at the hands of another on reservation land. Crow Dog was a member of the Brulé band of the Lakota Sioux. On August 5, 1881 he shot and killed Spotted Tail, a Lakota chief; there are different accounts of the background to the killing. The tribal council dealt with the incident according to Sioux tradition, and Crow Dog paid restitution to the dead man's family. However, the U.S. authorities then prosecuted Crow Dog for murder in a federal court. He was found guilty and sentenced to hang.

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that absent explicit congressional direction to the contrary, it must be presumed that a State does not have jurisdiction to tax tribal members who live and work in Indian country, whether the particular territory consists of a formal or informal reservation, allotted lands, or dependent Indian communities.

United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that lands designated as a reservation in Mississippi are "Indian country" as defined by statute, although the reservation was established nearly a century after Indian removal and related treaties. The court ruled that, under the Major Crimes Act, the State has no jurisdiction to try a Native American for crimes covered by that act that occurred on reservation land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas</span> Federally recognized tribe of Kickapoo people

The Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas is one of three Federally recognized tribes of Kickapoo people. The other Kickapoo tribes in the United States are the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas and the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma. The Tribu Kikapú are a distinct subgroup of the Oklahoma Kickapoo and reside on a hacienda near Múzquiz Coahuila, Mexico; they also have a small band located in the Mexican states of Sonora and Durango.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader)</span> American politician

Minnie Evans was a tribal chair of the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation who successfully defeated termination of her tribe and filed for reparations with the Indian Claims Commission during the Indian termination policy period from the 1940s to the 1960s.

Vestana Cadue(Kickapoo name: Pam-o-thah-ah-quah) was the first female chairperson of the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas. She was elected just months prior to the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 108 calling for the termination of her tribe. She led the tribal effort to successfully defeat enactment of a termination bill on the Kansas Kickapoo.

United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that American Indians convicted on reservation land were not deprived of the equal protection of the laws; (a) the federal criminal statutes are not based on impermissible racial classifications but on political membership in an Indian tribe or nation; and (b) the challenged statutes do not violate equal protection. Indians or non-Indians can be charged with first-degree murder committed in a federal enclave.

References

  1. ↑ Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  76–565 , H.R. 3048, 54  Stat.   249 , enacted June 8, 1940, codified as 18 U.S.C.   § 3243.
  2. ↑ Anderson, Robert T. "Negotiating Jurisdiction: Retroceding State Authority Over Indian Country Granted By Public Law 280" (PDF). Washington Law Review. 87: 929. Retrieved 2014-12-18.
  3. 1 2 Francis, John J.; Leeds, Stacy L.; Organick, Aliza; Exum, Jelani Jefferson (2011). "Reassessing Concurrent Tribal–State–Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas" (PDF). Kansas Law Review. 59: 949–989. Retrieved 2014-12-17.
  4. 1 2 Francis et al. 2011 , pp. 950–951
  5. ↑ Francis et al. 2011 , p. 951
  6. ↑ Negonsott v. Samuels, 507U.S.99 (1993).
  7. ↑ Francis et al. 2011 , pp. 954–955
  8. ↑ Francis et al. 2011 , pp. 957–958
  9. ↑ Negonsott 1993 , p. 107
  10. ↑ Francis et al. 2011 , pp. 958–959
  11. ↑ Francis et al. 2011 , p. 960
  12. ↑ Francis et al. 2011 , p. 964
  13. ↑ Negonsott 1993 , p. 107
  14. ↑ Francis et al. 2011 , p. 965
  15. ↑ Negonsott 1993 , p. 109
  16. ↑ Negonsott 1993 , p. 99
  17. 1 2 "U.S.C. Title 25 - INDIANS".
  18. ↑ "[USC04] 18 USC Ch. 211: JURISDICTION AND VENUE".
  19. ↑ Negonsott 1993 , pp. 103–104
  20. ↑ "Legislation Terminating Federal Controls over Eight Indian Groups Submitted to Congress" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-06-10. Retrieved 2014-12-19.
  21. ↑ Francis et al. 2011 , p. 982
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.