Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/United States v. Kagama

United States v. Kagama

 * 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/August 21, 2016 by — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)



United States v. Kagama,, was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. Kagama, a Yurok Native American (then called Indian) was accused of murder, a case of Indian-on-Indian crimes committed on an Indian reservation. His case was selected as a test case by the Department of Justice to test the constitutionality of a Congressional Act which gave the federal courts jurisdiction in such cases. The opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Freeman Miller (pictured), confirmed the authority of Congress over Indian affairs. Plenary power over Indian tribes, supposedly granted to the U.S. Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, was not deemed necessary to support the Supreme Court in this decision; instead, the Court found the power in the tribes' status as dependent domestic nations. This allowed Congress to pass the Dawes Act the following year. The case has been criticized by legal scholars as drawing on powers that are not granted to Congress by the Constitution. It remains good law, despite that criticism.
 * Most recent similar article(s): 20 June
 * Main editors: GregJackP
 * Promoted: August 2015
 * Reasons for nomination: trial in September 1886
 * Support as nominator. Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Nice article with dual themes of law and the rights of Indigenous people in the Americas.  Major case.   Montanabw (talk)  20:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Legal articles are underrepresented among FAs, and this will be an excellent opportunity to showcase a very nice article about a significant case. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)