aug 1, 1896 - Talton v. Mayes

Description:

OVERVIEW:

Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376, was a United States Supreme Court case, in which the court decided that the individual rights protections, which limit federal, and later, state governments, do not apply to tribal government.


HISTORY / THE LAW BEFORE THE RULING:

Constitutional Grant of Congressional Plenary Powers
Congress, by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, holds plenary powers that enable it to either impose or relax restrictions on tribal sovereignty. The constitutional provisions from which Congress's plenary powers originate are the Indian Commerce Clause and the Treaty Clause. Although treaty-making power is granted to the President, it is normally extended to authorize Congress to "deal with 'matters.'" Congressional plenary powers are also supported by Congress's historical role in setting Indian policy. United States v. Lara reveals important issues that are still hotly debated today, such as whether there is truly a broad constitutional grant of congressional plenary powers and the compatibility of the doctrines of inherent tribal sovereignty and federal plenary powers. The relationship between the jurisdictional powers of the federal government and the tribes, and the application of congressional plenary powers, took shape in the 1896 decision Talton v. Mayes.
The Tribal Relationship to the Federal Government
The Court laid the framework for understanding the dual sovereignty that exists between tribal governments and the federal government in Talton v. Mayes. The Court held that although the tribal sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation is "restrained by the general provisions of the Constitution" and "subject to the dominant authority of Congress," the Tribe's authority did not arise out of the Constitution, as the Cherokee  [*240]  Nation existed before the Constitution.  Because the Cherokee Nation's sovereignty did not arise out of the Constitution, as the federal government's did, the Tribe is not bound by the Fifth Amendment.
There is an important distinction, however, between the "general provisions of the constitution" and other rights carried in the Constitution. Talton, and later Wheeler, affirm the position that constitutional rights that act specifically as restraints on federal and state powers cannot operate on tribal sovereigns. Examples of rights that operate on federal and state powers but not on tribes include the absence of just compensation requirements for tribes n21 and a lack of First Amendment rights for tribal members. However, the Constitution's general provisions, those directed at any actor, private or otherwise, such as the Civil Rights Act and proscriptions against slavery, do apply to tribal sovereigns. For example, the Ninth Circuit has heard claims against tribal leaders alleging racist acts and remarks in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

BIOGRAPHY:

Mr. Leonidas D. Yarrell for appellant. Mr. Elijah V. Brookshire and Mr. Benjamin T. Duvalwere on his brief.

- Yarrell’s Law firm opened in 1891

- Yarrell was mentioned in Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Mr. R.C. Garland for appellee. Mr. A.H. Garland and Mr. William M. Cravens were on his brief.

Mr. Justice. White, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

John Marshall Harlan
- Lawyer, Civil Rights Activist, Supreme Court Justice (1833–1911)
- Born on June 1, 1833, in Boyle County, Kentucky, John Marshall Harlan served in the Union Army during the American Civil War. He made two unsuccessful bids for the Kentucky governorship in the 1870s, and was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1877. Regarded as one of the most forceful dissenters in the history of the Court, Harlan was the only justice to oppose the 1883 decision to strike down the Civil Rights Act of 1875. He also dissented from the Supreme Court's ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld laws allowing racial segregation on trains and in other public facilities under the "separate but equal" legal doctrine. He died in 1911.

FIRAC:

Facts:
Bob Talton, the defendant, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by the Cherokee Nation. The victim and defendant were both members of the Cherokee Nation. The defendant alleged the judgment against him was invalid due to the fact that he was indicted by a grand jury consisting of only five people. The district court denied relief and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the issue.

Issues:
Does the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution apply to the local legislation of the Cherokee Nation so as to require all prosecutions for offenses committed against the laws of that Nation to be initiated by a grand jury organized in accordance with the provisions of that amendment?

Holding: The decision of the Cherokee court was upheld with an almost unanimous vote, 8-1.

Rationale:
The Court had decided several times previously that the powers of local government the Native American tribes exercised existed prior to the creation of the Constitution and thus were not derived from it. It was maintained in the Talton case that the Fifth Amendment held no sway over the operations of the Cherokee's local justice system, as Talton only involved Cherokee persons and laws. The Court stated that "as the powers of local self-government enjoyed by the Cherokee Nation existed prior to the constitution, they are not operated upon by the Fifth Amendment

RELATED CASES:
Worchester V. Georgia
31 U.S. 515
case in which the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional. 

United States V. Kagama
118 U.S. 37
United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. This Congressional act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain cases of Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if the crimes were committed on an Indian reservation.

Williams V Lee
358 U.S. 217 
a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Arizona does not have jurisdiction to try a civil case between a non-Indian doing business on a reservation with tribal members who reside on the reservation, the proper forum for such cases being the tribal court.

Barron v. Baltimore
32 U.S. 243 (1833)
a landmark United States Supreme Court case in 1833, which helped define the concept of federalism in US constitutional law. The Court established a precedent that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments.
Since that case was adjudicated in 1833, it had been a settled fact that the Fifth Amendment was a limitation on the powers of the federal government only, which were created by the Constitution

United States Supreme Court DANIEL RED BIRD v. U S, (1906)
Andrew Red Bird was arraigned on the charge of rape by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Court. He was then sent on the District Court in South Dakota, and federal authorities were finally notified nearly a month after his arrest. One of the first things that the Court set out to determine was whether the tribe had the power to act in this situation. Even though this appeals court case took place in 2001 and 2002, Talton v. Mayes was referenced as one of the main prerequisites showing that the tribe had indeed had the power to act as they had, because their power was not derived from the Constitution, but rather was in existence before that. Red Bird ended up winning his case to suppress one of his statements made under unconstitutional circumstances, but the power of local government exercised by the Rosebud Sioux tribe was upheld based on Talton v. Mayes

United States v. Wheeler
Included much the same storyline as United States v. Andrew Red Bird, with Talton v. Mayes playing the same role. Wheeler was also arraigned for rape, and Talton v. Mayes was again mentioned as the Justices tried to determine what the power of the local tribal government was.
Talton v. Mayes was also mentioned briefly either in the arguing or the decision making for several different cases, including United States v. Lara, Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., Inc, and more

CITATIONS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1848_in_the_United_States

http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.lib.utep.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/

http://files.usgwarchives.net/va/southampton/news/02061891rt.txt

https://books.google.com/books?id=MX9DAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA136&ots=wYwuJOa5zf&dq=L.%20D.%20Yarrell&pg=PA136#v=onepage&q=L.%20D.%20Yarrell&f=false

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1896539163us3761503

https://www.biography.com/people/john-marshall-harlan-9328814

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/31us515

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/118us375

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1958/39

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/32us243

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/203/76.html

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/435/313.html

Added to timeline:

Date:

Images: