Talton v. Mayes
Encyclopedia
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
, was a 1896 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
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, , was a United States Supreme Court case. The Cherokee Nation sought a federal injunction against laws passed by the state of Georgia depriving them of rights within its boundaries, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case on its merits...
case, that gave Indian tribes the status of "domestic dependent nations," the sovereignty of which is independent of the federal government.
Background
Talton v. Mayes was brought before the United States Supreme Court in 1896 by Bob Talton, a CherokeeCherokee
The Cherokee are a Native American people historically settled in the Southeastern United States . Linguistically, they are part of the Iroquoian language family...
Indian convicted of the murder of a fellow Cherokee. He was sentenced to death by hanging after a trial that took place between May and December 1892. The appellant appealed the decision on the basis that the court had violated his rights by being in contradiction to the law. The US Constitution and, by the end of his trial, the Cherokee laws, demanded more than the 5 Grand Jury
Grand jury
A grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether a criminal indictment will issue. Currently, only the United States retains grand juries, although some other common law jurisdictions formerly employed them, and most other jurisdictions employ some other type of preliminary hearing...
members furnished by the Cherokee Courts. According to Justice White in the majority opinion of the court, "Prior to May, 1892, a law enacted by the legislature of the Cherokee Nation made it the duty of the judges of the circuit and district courts of the Nation, 14 days before the commencement of the first regular term of said courts, to furnish to the sheriff a list of the names of 5 persons, who should be summoned by the sheriff to act as grand jurors for that district during the year. The first regular term of the courts named commenced on the second Monday in May. On November 28, 1892, a law was enacted providing for the summoning and impaneling of a grand jury of 13, the names of the persons to compose such jury to be furnished to the sheriff, as under the previous law, 14 days before the commencement of the regular term of the circuit and district courts. There was no express repeal of the provisions of the prior law. Under the terms of the act of November 28, 1892, a grand jury could not have been impaneled before the term beginning on the second Monday of May, 1893. The indictment in question was returned in December, 1892, by a grand jury consisting of five persons, which grand jury had been impaneled under the prior law, to serve during the year 1892." The appellant argued that the decision should be thrown out because it violated either the Fifth or the Fourteenth amendment.
The central focus of the case was on the relationship between the Cherokee Nation and the United States, and if the local government of the Cherokee Nation was dependent in any way upon the Constitution and its amendments.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...
states that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." Because the grand jury consisted of less members than were by law required in the United States, Talton argues that it was not an actual "Grand Jury" as would be needed to fulfill the requirements for the Fifth Amendment. The part of the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
that was of consequence in Talton v. Mayes is the very first part. The first section of the amendment 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Talton attempted to argue that he should have been subject to the federal law since he was born and raised in the United States, but this point was shot down because of the unique status of Indian tribes. Being "domestic dependent nations" they do not qualify as a state or a part of the federal government and do not derive any of their local governmental powers from the Constitution and are not necessarily bound by its rules.
Talton v. Mayes took place during an era known as the Assimilation Era
Federal Indian Policy
Federal Indian Policy refers the relationship between the United States Government and the Indian Tribes that exist within its borders. Federal Indian Policy contains several eras in which the way the U.S. Government dealt with the Indians constantly changed....
, which basically lasted from the 1890s to the 1940s.
Decision
The decision of the Cherokee court was upheld with an almost unanimous vote, 8-1. The only person who dissented was Justice Harlan. The case had numerous precedents, particularly Barron v. BaltimoreBarron v. Baltimore
Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 established a precedent on whether the United States Bill of Rights could be applied to state governments.John Barron co-owned a profitable wharf in the Baltimore harbor...
. Since the case of Barron v. Baltimore, it has been a settled fact that the Fifth Amendment is a limitation only on the power of the general government. The Amendment only operates on the Constitution itself, qualifying the national government's powers which were called into being by the Constitution. Since the Court has determined several times that the powers of local government the Native American tribes exercised were in existence before the Constitution and therefore were not derived from it, the Fifth Amendment holds no sway over the operations of the Cherokee's local justice system, as the original case involved only Cherokee persons and land. The Court stated that "as the powers of local self-government enjoyed by the Cherokee Nation existed prior to the constitution, they are not operated upon by the Fifth Amendment."
US v. Andrew Red Bird
Andrew Red Bird was arraigned on the charge of rape by the Rosebud SiouxRosebud Indian Reservation
The Rosebud Indian Reservation is an Indian reservation in South Dakota, United States. It is the home of the federally recognized Sicangu Oyate, also known as Sicangu Lakota, the Upper Brulé Sioux Nation, and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe , a branch of the Lakota people...
Tribe Court. He was then sent on the District Court in South Dakota, and federal authorities were finally notified nearly a month after his arrest. One of the first things that the Court set out to determine was whether the tribe had the power to act in this situation. Even though this appeals court case took place in 2001 and 2002, Talton v. Mayes was referenced as one of the main prerequisites showing that the tribe had indeed had the power to act as they had, because their power was not derived from the Constitution, but rather was in existence before that. Red Bird ended up winning his case to suppress one of his statements made under unconstitutional circumstances, but the power of local government exercised by the Rosebud Sioux tribe was upheld based on Talton v. Mayes.
US v. Wheeler
United States v. WheelerUnited States v. Wheeler
United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 , is an 8-to-1 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the Constitution alone did not grant the federal government the power to prosecute kidnappers, and that only the states had the authority to punish a private citizen's unlawful...
included much the same storyline as US v. Andrew Red Bird, with Talton v. Mayes playing the same role. Wheeler was also arraigned for rape, and Talton v. Mayes was again mentioned as the Justices tried to determine what the power of the local tribal government was.
Talton v. Mayes was also mentioned briefly either in the arguing or the decision making for several different cases, including United States v. Lara,
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land &
Cattle Co., Inc, and more....
Legislation
Talton v. Mayes also had an effect on legislation, most notably the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968
The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 applies to the Indian tribes of the United States and makes many, but not all, of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights applicable within the tribes. The Act appears today in Title 25, sections 1301 to 1303 of the United States Code.- Events before passage of...
. While Talton v. Mayes did uphold the fact that the tribes were sovereign in their purely local affairs, it also said that while they were "possessed of . . . attributes of local self government, when exercising their
tribal functions, all such rights are subject to the supreme legislative authority of the United States.” and that "Congress has plenary authority to limit, modify or
eliminate the powers of local self-government which the tribes otherwise possess." Congress used that power to create the Indian Civil Rights Act, which forced Indian tribes to mimic the procedures of US courts in their judicial actions. While the Indian Civil Rights Act did not force the entire Constitution upon the Indians, it did include quite a few and forced the issue of plenary power
Plenary power
A plenary power or plenary authority is the separate identification, definition, and complete vesting of a power or powers or authority in a governing body or individual, to choose to act on a particular subject matter or area...
, Congress using its abilities to control the way Indian justice is served.
Additional References
- Washburn, Wilcomb E. "Red man's land/white man's law the past and present status of the American Indian." Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1995.
- Canby, William C. "American Indian Law in a Nutshell." (Nutshell Series) (3rd ed) (Nutshell Series) New York: West Group, 1996.
- Duthu, N. Bruce. "American Indians and the Law." The Penguin Library of American Indian History (Penguin's Library of American Indian History) New York: Viking Adult, 2008.