Background & Purpose
The Major Crimes Act was Congress's direct response to Ex parte Crow Dog (1883), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government lacked jurisdiction to prosecute an Indian for murdering another Indian on the reservation. Congress was alarmed by this "gap" in criminal jurisdiction and quickly passed the Major Crimes Act to assert federal criminal authority over serious felonies committed by Indians in Indian Country.
The Supreme Court upheld the Act's constitutionality in United States v. Kagama (1886), establishing the "plenary power" doctrine — the idea that the federal government has broad authority over Indian affairs derived from the trust relationship and the Indians' status as "wards" of the nation.
The Act originally covered 7 offenses; it now covers 16 enumerated felonies.
Enumerated Offenses (Current)
Murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, sexual abuse (all degrees), incest, assault with intent to commit murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, arson, burglary, robbery, felony child abuse or neglect, larceny (over $1,000), tribal member identity fraud, and use/possession of a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking.
The Act applies when the defendant is an Indian and the crime is committed within Indian Country. It does not matter whether the victim is Indian or non-Indian. Federal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act is exclusive of state jurisdiction (except in P.L. 280 states) but concurrent with tribal jurisdiction.
How This Affects ATN's Criminal Jurisdiction
In non-P.L. 280 states, the Major Crimes Act creates federal jurisdiction. In California (a P.L. 280 state), state jurisdiction largely supersedes — but tribal concurrent jurisdiction remains.
- 1. P.L. 280 supersedes for most purposes. In California, P.L. 280 transferred the criminal jurisdiction that would otherwise be federal (under the Major Crimes Act and General Crimes Act) to the state. California state courts handle these offenses on the Mendocino Reservation.
- 2. Tribal concurrent jurisdiction survives. Walker v. Rushing confirmed that P.L. 280 did not divest tribal criminal jurisdiction. ATN's tribal court has concurrent jurisdiction over tribal members who commit crimes on the reservation — even Major Crimes Act offenses.
- 3. Retrocession restores federal jurisdiction. If ATN achieves retrocession under ICRA/TLOA, the Major Crimes Act's federal jurisdiction would be restored — meaning the FBI and U.S. Attorney would handle major felonies instead of (or in addition to) Mendocino County.
- 4. VAWA expands tribal criminal reach. VAWA 2013/2022 extended tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians for covered crimes — going beyond what the Major Crimes Act covers and partially overriding Oliphant.
- 5. Dual sovereignty = no double jeopardy. Denezpi v. United States (2022) confirmed that tribal prosecution + federal prosecution for the same conduct does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because tribes and the federal government are separate sovereigns.
Related Cases & Authorities
- Ex parte Crow Dog (1883) — The case that triggered the Major Crimes Act
- United States v. Kagama (1886) — Upheld the Act's constitutionality
- Walker v. Rushing (1990) — Tribal concurrent criminal jurisdiction survives P.L. 280
- VAWA 2013 & 2022 — Extended tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians
- United States v. Lara (2004) — Congress can recognize inherent tribal criminal jurisdiction
- Indian Country — 18 U.S.C. § 1151 — Where the Major Crimes Act applies