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 owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the United States, and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born. The United States Congress later enacted the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which established citizenship for Indians previously excluded by the Constitution.

Though rendered undebatable for its application to native Indians by this law, the majority opinion offered by the Court in this case remains valid for interpretation of future citizenship issues regarding the 14th Amendment.

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 their birth within the United States and of their afterward voluntarily separating themself 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

Even though Elk was born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, he was born as a subject of an Indian nation, and thus could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he "owed immediate allegiance to" his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth. "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." [7] [8]

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. [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights and civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Loving v. Virginia (1967) regarding interracial marriage, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage, and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) regarding race-based college admissions. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

<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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States nationality law</span> History and regulations of American citizenship

United States nationality law details the conditions in which a person holds United States nationality. In the United States, nationality is typically obtained through provisions in the U.S. Constitution, various laws, and international agreements. Citizenship is established as a right under the Constitution, not as a privilege, for those born in the United States under its jurisdiction and those who have been "naturalized". While the words citizen and national are sometimes used interchangeably, national is a broader legal term, such that a person can be a national but not a citizen, while citizen is reserved to nationals who have the status of citizenship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Naturalization Act of 1790</span> United States federal law

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free white person(s) ... of good character". This eliminated ambiguity on how to treat newcomers, given that free black people had been allowed citizenship at the state level in many states. In reading the Naturalization Act, the courts also associated whiteness with Christianity and thus excluded Muslim immigrants from citizenship until the decision Ex Parte Mohriez recognized citizenship for a Saudi Muslim man in 1944.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Citizenship Reform Act of 2005</span> Amendment bill

The proposed Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 was a U.S. congressional bill introduced in the 109th United States Congress by Re. Nathan Deal (R-GA). The legislation aimed to deny birthright citizenship to individuals born in the United States whose parents were not citizens or permanent residents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Citizenship Act</span> 1924 US federal law granting citizenship to Native Americans

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, was an Act of the United States Congress that declared Indigenous persons born within the United States are US citizens. Although the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution says that any person born in the United States and subject to its laws and jurisdiction is a citizen, the amendment had previously been interpreted by the courts as not applicable to Native peoples.

Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for holding the office of president or vice president. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

<i>Perez v. Brownell</i> 1958 United States Supreme Court case

Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed Congress's right to revoke United States citizenship as a result of a citizen's voluntary performance of specified actions, even in the absence of any intent or desire on the person's part to lose citizenship. Specifically, the Supreme Court upheld an act of Congress which provided for revocation of citizenship as a consequence of voting in a foreign election.

United States citizenship can be acquired by birthright in two situations: by virtue of the person's birth within United States territory or because at least one of their parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person's birth. Birthright citizenship contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization.

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.

The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on July 9, 1868, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. This Congressional act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if they were committed on an Indian reservation. Kagama, a Yurok Native American (Indian) accused of murder, was selected as a test case by the Department of Justice to test the constitutionality of the Act.

<i>Talton v. Mayes</i> 1896 United States Supreme Court case

Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, in which the court decided that the individual rights protections, which limit federal, and later, state governments, do not apply to tribal government. It reaffirmed earlier decisions, such as the 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case, that gave Indian tribes the status of "domestic dependent nations," the sovereignty of which is independent of the federal government.

The Cherokee Freedmen controversy was a political and tribal dispute between the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and descendants of the Cherokee Freedmen regarding the issue of tribal membership. The controversy had resulted in several legal proceedings between the two parties from the late 20th century to August 2017.

United States v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916), is a United States Supreme Court decision which declared that Congress still retains plenary power to protect Native American interests when Native Americans are granted citizenship. United States v. Nice overruled the Heff decision which declared that Native Americans granted citizenship by the Dawes Act were also then citizens of the state in which they resided, meaning the sale of alcohol to such Native Americans was not subject to Congress's authority.

Birthright generation is a term used by immigrant advocates to identify US-born citizens, who are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It grants American citizenship to all babies born on American soil even if the child is born to one or both undocumented parents. Birthright citizenship may be also conferred either by jus soli or jus sanguinis. Under American law, any person born within the US, including the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted US citizenship.

Birthright is the concept of things being due to a person upon or by fact of their birth, or due to the order of their birth. These may include rights of citizenship based on the place where the person was born or the citizenship of their parents, and inheritance rights to property owned by parents or others.

Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915), is a United States Supreme Court case that upheld Section 3 of the Expatriation Act of 1907, which dictated that all American women who voluntarily married an foreign alien renounced their American citizenship. While the statute has since been repealed, this case remains significant because of its precedent that Congress can designate acts which serve as implied voluntary renunciation of one's American citizenship.

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.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  5. ↑ John C. Eastman, "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship," Legal Memorandum No. 18 (Heritage Foundation, Washington D.C.), March 30, 2006, at 3, available at http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm Archived 2009-02-05 at the Wayback Machine .
  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. ↑ "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.