[1] This Congressional act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if they were committed on an Indian reservation.

Plenary power over Indian tribes, supposedly granted to the U.S. Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, was deemed not necessary to support the Supreme Court's decision.

The case has been criticized by legal scholars as drawing on powers that are not granted to Congress by the Constitution, but it remains good law.

[12] At the time the reservation was formed, three unique bands of Indian tribes lived on different parts of the Klamath River, each with its own language.

[14] Without legal authority and against government policy, Porter allotted small parcels of land to the local Indian people, thus upsetting an age-old property rights system among families in the Klamath River Valley.

[35] Further, Jenks incorporated aspects of the political debate in Congress when the act was passed citing that the U.S. should be able to enforce its laws within its borders, regardless of treaty rights.

[38] Finally, he argued that such a profound shift in Indian policy should not be enacted in a law whose heading and body were wholly inconsistent with the intent of the Major Crimes Act.

In effect, he argued that such a law governing a people should be debated in full sight of the American public and on its own merits.

[39] Redding argued that Congress could not assert power over sovereign people who, when making treaties to cede land, reserved certain rights to themselves.

This ruling meant that the federal circuit court's indictment would stand and the case would proceed to trial back in Northern California.

[45][fn 10] The opinion drew heavily on the language of the Solicitor General's brief, which by today's standards would be considered by many as racially charged.

The language in Miller's opinion is infamous for its description of Indian tribes as weak, degraded and dependent on the federal government for support.

[49] In effect, this decision contended that the U.S. government had supreme authority to enforce laws within its borders, but did not mention where this power was outlined in the Constitution.

[54] Based on Treadwell's position within the United States General Land Office, the judge believed him and ordered a directed verdict of not guilty.

[60] Kagama was the case that articulated Congress' plenary power over the Native American tribes in the late 19th century.

[61] It reaffirmed Congress' power to pass legislation, including the Dawes Act, that would take away many of the liberties that Native Americans had been able to hold on to up until that point.

[62] 19th and early 20th century U.S. lawmakers viewed the American Indians as inferior people who would benefit from being assimilated into the Euro-American culture.

[72] In a Comment, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review noted that "the Court promulgated what can be called the 'it-must-be-somewhere' doctrine ..."[73] Kagama remains good law, being cited in support of the plenary power doctrine as recently as 2004 in United States v. Lara[74] by the Supreme Court, and cited in 2015 by the 6th Circuit.