Jump to content

Elk v. Wilkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elk v. Wilkins
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]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

References

[edit]
  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

[edit]
  • Tennant, Brad (2011). "'Excluding Indians Not Taxed': Dred Scott, Standing Bear, Elk and the Legal Status of Native Americans in the Latter Half of the Nineteenth Century". International Social Science Review. 86 (1–2): 24–43. JSTOR 41887472.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elk_v._Wilkins&oldid=1262041617"