Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Goldsby, Alias Cherokee Bill, v. United States

• 1895 • 160 U.S. 70 • Fuller Court
In the case of Goldsby, Alias Cherokee Bill v. United States (1895), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian Territory. The defendant, Crawford Goldsby alias Cherokee Bill, was convicted and sentenced to death for murder by a federal court in Fort Smith, Arkansas. He appealed his conviction arguing that because he was an Indian who had killed another Indian within the boundaries of an established reservation (Indian Territory), only tribal...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1895
Docket: 620
160 U.S. 70
16 S. Ct. 216
40 L. Ed. 343
1895 U.S. LEXIS 2344

Goldsby, Alias Cherokee Bill, v. United States

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Goldsby, Alias Cherokee Bill v. United States (1895), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian Territory. The defendant, Crawford Goldsby alias Cherokee Bill, was convicted and sentenced to death for murder by a federal court in Fort Smith, Arkansas. He appealed his conviction arguing that because he was an Indian who had killed another Indian within the boundaries of an established reservation (Indian Territory), only tribal courts held jurisdiction over his crime under existing treaties between tribes and the federal government. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that Congress had plenary power over all territories belonging to the United States including those designated as "Indian Country." It further clarified that while certain rights were granted to Native American tribes through treaties, these did not include sovereignty or exclusive judicial authority within their reservations unless explicitly stated so by Congress. Therefore it upheld Goldsby's conviction and sentence ruling that federal courts did have jurisdiction over serious crimes like murder committed in Indian Territory regardless of whether both victim and perpetrator were Indians.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Goldsby v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed by one Native American against another on tribal land. He contended that Congress only had authority to regulate commerce with Indian tribes and manage their affairs but could not interfere in criminal matters within a tribe unless explicitly granted such power by treaty or legislation. The majority's interpretation of the law, according to him, undermined tribal sovereignty and self-governance. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's reliance on precedents involving non-Indians committing crimes on reservations as these cases were fundamentally different from those involving intra-tribal disputes among Indians themselves.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: Dec 02, 1895
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms