Elk v. Wilkins

Last updated

Elk v. Wilkins
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 28, 1884
Decided November 3, 1884
Full case nameJohn Elk v. Charles Wilkins
Citations112 U.S. 94 ( more )
5 S. Ct. 41; 28 L. Ed. 643; 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1857
Holding
An Indian cannot make himself a citizen of the United States without the consent and the co-operation of the government.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller  · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley  · John M. Harlan
William B. Woods  · Stanley Matthews
Horace Gray  · Samuel Blatchford
Case opinions
MajorityGray, joined by Waite, Miller, Field, Bradley, Matthews, Blatchford
DissentHarlan, joined by Woods

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), was a United States Supreme Court landmark 1884 decision [1] [2] with respect to the citizenship status of Indians. [3]

Contents

John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation within the territorial bounds of United States. He later resided off-reservation in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed birthright citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [4] The case came about after Elk tried to register to vote on April 5, 1880, and was denied by Charles Wilkins, the named defendant, who was registrar of voters of the Fifth ward of the City of Omaha.

In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born on an Indian reservation. The United States Congress later enacted the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which established citizenship for Indians previously excluded by the Constitution.

Background

The question then was whether an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States is, merely by reason of his birth within the United States and of his afterward voluntarily separating himself from the tribe and taking up residence among white citizens, a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Under the Constitution, Congress had and exercised the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and the members thereof, within or without the boundaries of one of the states of the Union. The "Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states"; but "they were alien nations, distinct political communities", with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress. [5] The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States. [6]

Decision

While Elk was born within the United States, he was born as a subject of an Indian nation within the sovereign jurisdiction of an Indian reservation. The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth. [7] [8]

Legacy

In a dissent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark , Justice Melville Fuller wrote of this opinion, "The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." [9] As a minority opinion, this interpretation is not considered as precedent or the authoritative view of the court at the time.

Subsequent legislation

The exclusion of Native Americans from citizenship was eventually eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. At the time, two thirds of Native Americans had already achieved citizenship. [10]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Rudolph C. Ryser (2012). Indigenous Nations and Modern States: The Political Emergence of Nations Challenging State Power. Routledge. p. 54. ISBN   978-0-415-80853-8 . Retrieved June 10, 2020.
  2. ↑ Bryan H. Wildenthal (2003). Native American Sovereignty on Trial: A Handbook with Cases, Laws, and Documents. Santa Barbara, California, United States of America; Denver, Colorado, United States of America; Oxford, England, Great Britain: ABC-CLIO. p. 28. ISBN   1-57607-624-5 . Retrieved June 10, 2020.
  3. ↑ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).
  4. ↑ Bodayla, Stephen D. (1986). "'Can An Indian Vote?': Elk v Wilkins, A Setback for Indian Citizenship" (PDF). Nebraska History. 67: 372–380. Archived from the original on May 22, 2013. Retrieved December 15, 2010.
  5. ↑ John C. Eastman, "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship" [unfit] , Legal Memorandum No. 18 (Heritage Foundation, Washington D.C.), March 30, 2006, at 3
  6. ↑ Elk, 112 U.S. at 99.
  7. ↑ Elk, 112 U.S. at 102.
  8. ↑ Bomboy, Scott (November 23, 2021). "Supreme Court says tax-paying Indians can't vote". Constitution Daily. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center. Retrieved December 2, 2021.
  9. ↑ "United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)". National Constitution Center.
  10. ↑ "Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties", Compiled and edited by Charles Kappler, Vol. IV Laws (1927), Washington: Government Printing Office, available at "INDIAN AFFAIRS: LAWS AND TREATIES. Vol. IV, Laws". Archived from the original on October 11, 2008. Retrieved October 14, 2008.

Further reading

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.