Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantjurisdictionstatuteappealtreatycitizenship
plaintiffdefendantjurisdiction

Related Cases

Rusk v. Cort
View Case »
Reyes v. Van Elk, Ltd
View Case »
Walters v. McMahen
View Case »
Zhang v. USCIS
View Case »
Perales v. Reno
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Elk v. Wilkins

Facts

The plaintiff, a Native American, brought a suit against the registrar in Omaha, Nebraska, after being denied registration as a qualified voter. The Circuit Court dismissed his petition, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff argued that he was a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, having been born in the United States and severed his tribal ties. However, the Court found that he had never been naturalized and was not recognized as a citizen by any statute or treaty.

The petition, while it does not show of what Indian tribe the plaintiff was a member, yet, by the allegations that he 'is an Indian, and was born within the United States,' and that 'he had severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes,' clearly implies that he was born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether a Native American born in the United States, who had severed his tribal relations, could be considered a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The question then is, whether an Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, is, merely by reason of his birth within the United States, and of his afterwards voluntarily separating himself from his tribe and taking up his residency among white citizens, a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Rule

The Court ruled that citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment requires complete subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States, which Native Americans, as members of tribes, did not possess.

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government.

Analysis

The Court analyzed the plaintiff's claim by examining the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that only those 'born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' are citizens. The Court concluded that Native Americans, despite being born in the U.S., were not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction and thus did not qualify for citizenship. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff had not been naturalized and that his tribal affiliation precluded him from being considered a citizen.

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.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore had not been deprived of any voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court that had dismissed plaintiff's suit against defendant registrar for refusing to register plaintiff as a qualified voter within Omaha, Nebraska.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the defendant registrar, as the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit, affirming that the plaintiff was not a U.S. citizen.

The prevailing party was the defendant registrar, as the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit, affirming that the plaintiff was not a U.S. citizen.

You must be