United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that American Indians convicted on reservation land were not deprived of the equal protection of the laws; (a) the federal criminal statutes are not based on impermissible racial classifications but on political membership in an Indian tribe or nation; and (b) the challenged statutes do not violate equal protection.

[1] In accordance with Lakota law and customs, the tribal council ordered an end to the hostilities and Crow Dog paid restitution to Spotted Tail's family in cash, a blanket, and eight horses.

[18] The Ninth Circuit agreed, noting that there were four ways that a murder on the reservation could be tried and the three where one or more of the parties were Indian resulted in harsher punishment than had non-Indians only been involved.

[26] On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit has held that the law "intentionally requires more than a simple blood test to determine whether someone is legally deemed an Indian.

[30] The Tenth Circuit Court rejected that position, holding that the current tests required some showing of Indian blood.

[32] Scholars have pointed out that the decision of the Supreme Court in Antelope and a predecessor case, Morton v. Mancari[33] have "has led to disparate treatment of Indian defendants in multiple criminal contexts.

"[34] Others, such as former United States Attorney Troy Eid[iv] have said that "Native Americans living and working on Indian reservations must endure a separate but unequal justice system that discriminates perniciously against them solely based on race and ethnicity.

[39][vii] Later cases, such as Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl,[41] have apparently based the Court's decision on race instead of political alignment.

[44] Other scholars point to a series of cases, including Antelope, indicating that Congress has plenary power to regulate the Indians tribes as it sees fit.