lack Letter
PALSU.S. Supreme Court (Justice Gray; Harlan dissenting), 1884draftborradorunverifiedsin verificar

Elk v. Wilkins

112 U.S. 94 (1884)

A Native American who left his tribe is denied the vote as a non-citizen

In one lineEn una línea
A person born into a tribe was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth and so was not a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.Quien nacía dentro de una tribu no estaba “sujeto a la jurisdicción” de Estados Unidos al nacer y por eso no era ciudadano bajo la Decimocuarta Enmienda.
RuleRegla
The Citizenship Clause requires birth completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States; members of tribes, like children of foreign diplomats, were not, and could become citizens only by naturalization through treaty or statute.
Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso
Shows how narrowly the Court read the Citizenship Clause in 1884, and why Congress later had to pass the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Procedural posturePostura procesal
Elk sued the Omaha voter registrar for refusing to register him; the circuit court sustained a demurrer to the complaint; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Facts

John Elk was born a member of an Indian tribe, later severed his tribal relations and lived in Omaha, Nebraska, among non-Native citizens. When he tried to register to vote, the registrar, Wilkins, refused on the ground that Elk was not a citizen.

Procedural posture

Elk sued under the Civil Rights Act for the refusal to register him, claiming citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. The circuit court sustained a demurrer. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue

Whether a Native American born a tribal member, who later leaves the tribe, is a citizen of the United States under the Citizenship Clause.

Holding

No. He was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth, and no later act of naturalization made him a citizen.

Reasoning

The Court read “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to mean completely subject to the political jurisdiction and owing direct allegiance, not merely present within the territory. Tribes were treated as distinct political communities, so their members stood like children of foreign ministers. Naturalization required an affirmative act by the United States (treaty or statute), and an individual could not naturalize himself by leaving the tribe.

Rule (own words)

Birth within the territory was not enough in 1884; the Court demanded birth within the nation’s political jurisdiction. The decision left tribal members outside citizenship until Congress acted in 1924.

What-ifs

  • Compare United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898): a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen, because his parents were subject to U.S. jurisdiction, unlike tribal members.
  • The case is the historical background for today’s debates about the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction.”

Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables

Elk had severed his tribal ties and lived among white citizens. Why did that not matter?
Because the Court required jurisdiction at birth and treated later conduct as irrelevant without an act of the United States accepting him as a citizen.
What did Justice Harlan argue in dissent?
That the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act were meant to make all persons born in the country citizens once they left tribal allegiance; denying Elk created a class with no nation.
Is this still the law?
Congress overrode the result by statute: the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made all Native Americans born in the United States citizens.
Citizenship Clausenaturalization

AssignedAsignado: 2026-10-16

Read the public opinionLeer la opinión (texto público). SourceFuente: Own brief from the public opinion; handout for Oct 16.