Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Ex parte Crow Dog

Ex parte Crow Dog
This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Today's featured article/requests. 
 * This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page. 

The result was: scheduled for Today's featured article/October 8, 2013 by BencherliteTalk 22:35, 24 September 2013‎ (UTC)



Ex parte Crow Dog (1883) was a case that involved a conflict between two members of the same Native American tribe on reservation land where one, Crow Dog, killed the other. The Supreme Court of the United States held that a federal court did not have jurisdiction to try Crow Dog, a member of the Brulé band of the Lakota Sioux, when the offense had already been tried by the tribal council. The tribe handled the case according to Sioux tradition, and Crow Dog paid restitution. However, the United States government then also tried Crow Dog for murder, and he was sentenced to hang. On his appeal to the Supreme Court, the court held that unless Congress authorized it, the courts had no jurisdiction to try the case. This case resulted in Congress enacting the Major Crimes Act in 1885, placing 15 major crimes under federal jurisdiction if committed by an Indian against another Indian on a reservation or tribal land. This case was the beginning of the plenary power legal doctrine that has been used in Indian case law to limit tribal sovereignty.

Support as nom. - GregJackP   Boomer!   12:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I remember reading this. Interesting case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)