## Facts

- Kan-Gi-Shun-Ca, also known as Crow Dog, and Sin-ta-ge-le-Scka, also known as Spotted Tail, were members of the Brulé Sioux band of the Sioux Nation.
- On August 5, 1881, Crow Dog killed Spotted Tail on the Great Sioux Reservation, which was Indian country.
- Tribal authorities handled the matter under Sioux customs and policies, and Crow Dog made restitution to Spotted Tail’s family.
- Soon after, a federal agent arrested Crow Dog, and federal authorities pursued a murder charge under federal law.
- Crow Dog was indicted and tried in the district court for the First Judicial District of the Territory of Dakota, which sat as a federal circuit court for purposes of the prosecution.
- A jury found Crow Dog guilty of murder, and the court sentenced him to death, setting an execution date of January 14, 1884.
- The Supreme Court of the Territory of Dakota affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- Crow Dog petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that Rev. Stat. § 2146 barred federal jurisdiction over crimes by one Indian against another Indian in Indian country; the United States argued that the 1868 Sioux treaty (and related later provisions) displaced that statutory bar.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court in the Territory of Dakota had jurisdiction to try and sentence an Indian for killing another Indian in Indian country on the Sioux reservation, given Rev. Stat. § 2146’s exception for Indian-on-Indian crimes.
2. Whether provisions in the 1868 treaty with the Sioux Nation, and later agreements or statutes concerning the Sioux, repealed or displaced Rev. Stat. § 2146 so as to allow federal prosecution for this offense.
3. Whether the place of the homicide qualified as “Indian country” for purposes of the federal statutory jurisdictional scheme.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction to try and sentence Crow Dog for killing Spotted Tail because Rev. Stat. § 2146 expressly excepted from federal jurisdiction crimes committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian in Indian country.
- The Court rejected the government’s claim that the 1868 Sioux treaty or later measures repealed § 2146; there was no clear conflict requiring that result, and repeal by implication was not found.
- The Court treated the Great Sioux Reservation as Indian country for purposes of the governing statutes.
- The Court granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered Crow Dog discharged from custody because the conviction and death sentence were void for lack of jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress has expressly withheld federal criminal jurisdiction over a category of offenses in Indian country—such as crimes by one Indian against another Indian under Rev. Stat. § 2146—federal courts may not exercise jurisdiction absent clear statutory authorization.
- Treaty language and later enactments will not be read to repeal an existing statutory limitation on jurisdiction without a clear and direct conflict; repeal by implication requires a strong showing of incompatibility.
- “Indian country,” as used in later federal statutes, may be interpreted with reference to earlier statutory definitions even if earlier provisions have been repealed, as an aid to construction.
- Habeas corpus is available to secure release from custody when the sentencing court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and the judgment is therefore void.

## Conclusion

Ex Parte Kan-Gi-Shun-Ca held that federal courts in the Dakota Territory had no jurisdiction to try Crow Dog for an Indian-on-Indian homicide committed in Indian country because Rev. Stat. § 2146 excluded such offenses from federal criminal jurisdiction, and neither the 1868 Sioux treaty nor subsequent measures clearly displaced that exclusion; the Court therefore granted habeas corpus and ordered Crow Dog released.


Ex Parte Kan-Gi-Shun-Ca (Ex Parte Crow Dog), 109 U.S. 556, 3 S.Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030 (1883)