United States v. Antelope

Background

On February 18, 1974, three enrolled members of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe broke into the home of Emma Johnson, an 81-year-old non-Indian in Worley, Idaho. They robbed her and beat her to death. Because the crimes occurred on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation, federal law under the Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. §1153) applied, and the defendants were indicted for burglary, robbery, and murder. One defendant was convicted of second-degree murder only; two were convicted of first-degree felony murder under the federal murder statute (18 U.S.C. §1111). The Ninth Circuit held that applying the federal felony-murder rule disadvantaged the defendants compared with Idaho law and violated equal protection principles.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether federal criminal statutes illegally subject people to federal prosecution because they are Indians. It explained that laws aimed at tribal members are political and tied to tribes’ unique sovereign status, not racial classifications, citing earlier decisions. The Court said Congress has authority to prescribe a federal criminal code for conduct on reservations, and that applying an evenhanded federal scheme does not become unconstitutional simply because a State uses different elements or rules. Finding no impermissible racial classification and noting that federal law treated all persons under federal jurisdiction alike, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and upheld the convictions.

Real world impact

The ruling permits federal prosecutors to apply the Major Crimes Act and federal murder law to enrolled tribal members for serious crimes on reservations even when state law lacks similar provisions. It leaves undecided questions about nonenrolled Indians and other differential penalty issues. The case was sent back to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.