Major Crimes Act

Major Crimes Act
Name	Major Crimes Act
Enacted by	United States Congress
Signed by	Chester A. Arthur
Date enacted	March 3, 1885
Statute at large	23 Stat. 362
Codified	18 U.S.C. § 1153 (current)
Related legislation	Indian Appropriations Act, Indian Reorganization Act, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968

Major Crimes Act.

The Major Crimes Act is a United States federal statute enacted in 1885 that extended federal criminal jurisdiction over certain felonies committed by or against members of Native American tribes on Indian reservations. It arose from nineteenth-century crises involving jurisdictional ambiguity highlighted by incidents such as the Ex parte Crow Dog decision, and it has shaped interactions among federal courts, tribal courts, and state authorities in matters involving serious offenses like murder, manslaughter, rape, arson, and kidnapping. The Act remains a central pivot in debates about tribal sovereignty, federal Indian policy, and criminal justice involving Indigenous peoples.

Background and Legislative History

Congress enacted the statute following the Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Crow Dog (109 U.S. 556 (1883)), which held that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over crimes committed by one member of a tribe against another in Indian country absent congressional authorization. The aftermath involved political responses in the United States Senate, advocacy by non-Indian settlers and Bureau of Indian Affairs officials, and input from figures associated with the Department of the Interior. Debates occurred alongside legislation such as the Indian Appropriations Act and administrative practices under the Office of Indian Affairs. President Chester A. Arthur signed the bill into law on March 3, 1885, reflecting a period of assimilationist policy and increased federal oversight of reservation affairs under officials influenced by contemporaries including William T. Sherman (whose postwar views informed Indian policy circles) and administrators linked to the Grant administration.

Provisions of the Act

The Act initially listed seven offenses, later expanded by Congress, and its current codification appears in 18 U.S.C. § 1153. Statutory provisions subject certain felonies—historically including murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, larceny, and kidnapping—to federal prosecution when committed by an Indian in Indian country. The law specifies venue and procedural relationships with federal district courts such as the United States District Court for the District of Montana, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, and others with jurisdiction over Indian country. Amendments and parallel statutes, including provisions in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, have modified prosecutorial options and interplay with tribal court sentencing under statutes like the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968.

Jurisdictional Impact on Native American Tribes

The statute reconfigured criminal jurisdiction among tribal courts, federal prosecutors from the United States Attorney offices, and state authorities where concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction exists under acts such as the Public Law 280. For tribes such as the Navajo Nation, Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (Oglala Sioux Tribe), Blackfeet Indian Reservation, and Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Act limited exclusive tribal criminal authority over enumerated felonies. It has influenced policing arrangements involving tribal police departments, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, and Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement, as well as cooperative agreements like cross-deputization pacts with state agencies in states such as Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Montana. The relationship between tribal adjudication under tribal codes and sentencing constraints imposed by Congress is central to disputes over self-determination advanced by leaders affiliated with organizations like the National Congress of American Indians.

Supreme Court and Legal Challenges

The constitutionality and scope of the statute have been litigated in cases beyond Ex parte Crow Dog, including decisions addressing the extent of federal plenary power over Indian affairs and limits on tribal sovereignty as articulated in opinions by justices across the eras of the Warren Court, Burger Court, and Rehnquist Court. Relevant jurisprudence intersects with cases concerning the scope of Congress’s power under the Indian Commerce Clause and doctrines developed in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock and other foundational rulings that shaped federal Indian law. Challenges often invoke precedents from the Marshall Court era as well as twentieth- and twenty-first-century opinions interpreting statutes such as the Indian Reorganization Act and the Indian Civil Rights Act, and they implicate litigants including tribal governments, federal prosecutors, and defense counsel in federal appellate courts like the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Implementation and Enforcement

Implementation relies on coordination among the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, tribal governments, and local law enforcement. Federal prosecutors decide whether to bring charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1153, often working with tribal law enforcement or the FBI to investigate serious felonies in Indian country. In practice, staffing and resource constraints—addressed in appropriations debates in the United States Congress—affect charging decisions, plea bargaining trends in federal district courts, and transfer of cases from tribal to federal jurisdiction. Cooperative mechanisms include memoranda of understanding, cross-designation agreements with state prosecutors, and discretionary tribal diversion programs influenced by policy initiatives promoted by organizations such as the Department of Justice Office of Tribal Justice.

Criticism and Tribal Sovereignty Debates

Critiques come from tribal leaders, advocates, scholars at institutions like Harvard University, University of Arizona, and Yale Law School, and policy groups such as the Native American Rights Fund and various tribal legal defense organizations. Objections argue that the statute undermines tribal sovereignty, reduces incentives for tribal self-governance, and contributes to disproportionate federal punishment and disparate outcomes for Indigenous defendants processed in federal courts such as those in Alaska and Arizona. Reform proposals have been advanced in forums including the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and by advocates for expanded tribal jurisdiction under legislation modeled on provisions in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 and broader tribal court sentencing enhancements. Scholars cite comparative dialogues involving international Indigenous rights bodies and United Nations mechanisms as part of ongoing debates about jurisdictional reform and restitution.

Category:United States federal criminal legislation