United States v. John
United States Supreme Court
437 U.S. 634 (1978)
- Written by Matthew Celestin, JD
Facts
Since the early 1800s, the United States government (the government) (plaintiff) had attempted, via treaties, to persuade the Choctaw Indian Tribe (the tribe) to relocate from central Mississippi to west of the Mississippi River (the river) so the United States could continue westward expansion. Mississippi also attempted to force the tribe west. In 1830, the tribe signed a treaty with the government in which the tribe relinquished its land in exchange for land west of the river. However, some Choctaws remained on the original Mississippi land (the Mississippi Choctaws). In the early 1900s, the government purchased land to be allotted to individual members of the Mississippi Choctaws. However, by the 1930s, federal policy favored preservation of Indian communities rather than allotments to individuals, and Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 to promote Indian self-government. In 1944, the government proclaimed the lands previously purchased for allotments as an official reservation (the reservation), and, in 1945, the Mississippi Choctaws became a federally recognized tribe. In 1975, Smith John (defendant), an undisputed member of the Mississippi Choctaws, was tried before a U.S. district court for assault with intent to kill in violation of the Major Crimes Act (MCA) at 18 U.S.C. § 1153, which granted federal courts jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by Indians within Indian country. The offense occurred on the reservation. A jury convicted John. However, the Mississippi Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the federal government had abandoned its supervisory authority over the Mississippi Choctaws as a result of the long period of time over which the federal government did not recognize the Mississippi Choctaws as an official tribe or recognize the land they occupied as an official reservation. Therefore, the courts held that the reservation was not Indian country for purposes of § 1153 and that the district court thus lacked jurisdiction. The government appealed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.