| Elk v. Wilkins | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 28, 1884 Decided November 3, 1884 | |
| Full case name | John Elk v. Charles Wilkins |
| Citations | 112U.S.94 (more) 5 S. Ct. 41; 28L. Ed. 643; 1884U.S. LEXIS 1857 |
| Holding | |
| An Indian cannot make himself a citizen of the United States without the consent and the co-operation of the government. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Gray, joined by Waite, Miller, Field, Bradley, Matthews, Blatchford |
| Dissent | Harlan, joined by Woods |
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), was aUnited States Supreme Court landmark 1884 decision[1][2] with respect to thecitizenship status of Indians.[3]
John Elk, aWinnebagoIndian, was born on anIndian reservation within theterritorial bounds of United States. He later resided off-reservation inOmaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimedbirthright citizenship by virtue of theCitizenship Clause of theFourteenth Amendment.[4] The case came about after Elk tried to register to vote on April 5, 1880, and was denied by Charles Wilkins, the named defendant, who was registrar of voters of the Fifthward of the City of Omaha.
In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born on an Indian reservation. TheUnited States Congress later enacted theIndian Citizenship Act of 1924, which established citizenship for Indians previously excluded by the Constitution.
The question then was whether anIndian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within theUnited States is, merely by reason of his birth within the United States and of his afterward voluntarily separating himself from the tribe and taking up residence amongwhite citizens, a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of theFourteenth Amendment of theConstitution.
Under the Constitution,Congress had and exercised the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and the members thereof, within or without the boundaries of one of the states of the Union. The "Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states"; but "they were alien nations, distinct political communities", with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress.[5] The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States.[6]
While Elk was born within the United States, he was born as a subject of an Indian nation within the sovereign jurisdiction of an Indian reservation. The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth.[7][8]
In a dissent inUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark, JusticeMelville Fuller quoted this opinion, "The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."[9]
The exclusion of Native Americans from citizenship was eventually eliminated by theIndian Citizenship Act of 1924. At the time, two thirds of Native Americans had already achieved citizenship.[10]
Works related toElk v. Wilkins at Wikisource