## Facts

- Three enrolled members of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe broke into the home of an 81-year-old non-Indian woman within the Coeur d’Alene Reservation in Idaho, robbed her, and killed her.
- A federal grand jury indicted the defendants for burglary, robbery, and murder based on federal jurisdiction over major crimes committed by Indians in Indian country under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153.
- Two defendants were convicted of first-degree murder under the federal felony-murder rule in 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (as applied through § 1153), plus robbery and burglary; the third was convicted of second-degree murder.
- Idaho law would have required proof of premeditation and deliberation for first-degree murder in comparable circumstances and did not mirror the federal felony-murder approach.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the first-degree felony-murder convictions on the theory that applying federal law to Indians, when non-Indians would be tried under Idaho law, violated equal protection as incorporated in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component is violated when enrolled tribal members are prosecuted under federal murder law (including felony murder) through the Major Crimes Act, while a non-Indian committing a similar crime in the same state would be prosecuted under different state-law elements.
2. Whether the federal statutory scheme rests on an impermissible racial classification when it makes Indian status and Indian-country location jurisdictionally relevant.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit and reinstated the federal convictions.
- The Court held that prosecuting the defendants under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1153 did not deny equal protection.
- The Court concluded the challenged statutes were not based on impermissible racial classifications and did not become unconstitutional merely because federal and state criminal laws differed in severity or elements.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Federal legislation addressing crimes committed by Indians in Indian country may treat tribal membership and Indian-country jurisdiction as relevant factors because those classifications are political, tied to the federal government’s relationship with tribes, not racial.
- Equal protection is not violated solely because Congress applies a federal criminal code in Indian country that differs from surrounding state law.
- When federal enclave murder law applies, it applies uniformly to any person prosecuted under that federal regime; differences between the federal regime and state regimes do not, by themselves, establish unconstitutional discrimination.

## Conclusion

The Court held that applying the federal felony-murder provisions to enrolled tribal members through the Major Crimes Act does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component, even if state law would impose different elements for first-degree murder in otherwise similar circumstances.


United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (1977)