3.2 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
3 min read•august 12, 2024
(1831) was a pivotal case in shaping the legal status of Native American tribes. It introduced the concept of tribes as "," setting the stage for the complex relationship between tribes and the .
The case arose from Georgia's attempts to seize Cherokee lands, highlighting the ongoing struggle for . Chief Justice Marshall's opinion established the , influencing federal Indian law for generations to come.
Tribal Sovereignty and Status
Domestic Dependent Nations and Tribal Sovereignty
Top images from around the web for Domestic Dependent Nations and Tribal Sovereignty
Indian Removal Act - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Indigenous Tribes of the United States • FamilySearch View original
Is this image relevant?
Indian Removal Act - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Domestic Dependent Nations and Tribal Sovereignty
Indian Removal Act - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Indigenous Tribes of the United States • FamilySearch View original
Is this image relevant?
Indian Removal Act - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Tribes recognized as domestic dependent nations within the United States
- Possess inherent tribal sovereignty and right to
- Sovereignty predates European contact and formation of the United States
- Tribes retain powers of self-government not expressly taken away by Congress or given up in treaties
Federal-Tribal Relationship and Tribal Status
- Federal government has a unique government-to-government relationship with
- Congress has over Indian affairs can limit tribal sovereignty through legislation
- Tribal status refers to whether a tribe is federally recognized, state recognized, or unrecognized
- Federally recognized tribes have a political relationship with the U.S. government are eligible for federal services and protections (574 federally recognized tribes as of 2021)
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia Case
Background and Parties Involved
- Cherokee Nation sought to enjoin the state of Georgia from enforcing laws that would seize Cherokee lands and undermine tribal sovereignty
- Chief Justice wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court
- Case involved questions of tribal status, sovereignty, and the relationship between tribes and the federal government
Supreme Court's Decision and Reasoning
- Court declined to hear the case on its merits, finding that it lacked original
- Cherokee Nation was not a foreign state under Article III of the Constitution and therefore could not sue Georgia directly in the Supreme Court
- Marshall introduced the concept of tribes as "domestic dependent nations" whose relationship to the U.S. "resembles that of a ward to his guardian"
- Guardian-ward analogy suggested that tribes were not fully sovereign and relied on the federal government for protection, while also affirming a
Federal Authority over Tribes
Congressional Power and the Trust Relationship
- Congress has broad authority over Indian affairs derived from the of the Constitution
- Trust relationship between the federal government and tribes obliges the U.S. to act in the best interests of tribes (fiduciary duty)
- Federal government has a responsibility to protect tribal lands, resources, and sovereignty
Limits on State Jurisdiction and Treaty Rights
- States generally lack jurisdiction over (reservation lands) unless expressly granted by Congress
- Tribes retain authority over internal matters such as membership, cultural practices, and local governance
- , such as hunting and fishing rights or , are legally binding agreements between tribes and the federal government that cannot be abrogated without congressional action or tribal consent
- Treaties often establish the boundaries of tribal lands and the scope of tribal sovereignty
Historical Context
Indian Removal Act and its Impact
- of 1830 authorized the president to negotiate removal treaties with tribes living east of the Mississippi River
- Act aimed to relocate tribes to Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma) to make room for white settlement and state jurisdiction
- Cherokee Nation v. Georgia occurred in the context of Georgia's efforts to remove the Cherokee from their ancestral lands
- Many tribes, including the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole (referred to as the "Five Civilized Tribes"), were forcibly removed from the Southeast in the 1830s on the
- Removal policies had devastating consequences for tribes, resulting in widespread loss of life, land, and cultural cohesion
Key Terms to Review (19)
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was a landmark Supreme Court case in 1831 that addressed the legal status of Native American tribes and their relationship with the United States government. The case established important precedents concerning tribal sovereignty and the federal government's authority over Indian affairs, ultimately framing the legal context for future cases involving Native American rights.
Domestic Dependent Nations: Domestic dependent nations refer to the status of Native American tribes within the United States, acknowledging their inherent sovereignty while also recognizing their dependence on the federal government for certain aspects of governance and support. This term highlights the unique legal relationship between tribes and the federal government, which impacts tribal sovereignty and self-governance, as well as legal precedents established in landmark Supreme Court cases.
Federal Government: The federal government refers to the national authority that governs a country, deriving its powers from a constitution and functioning through various branches. In the context of Native American Law, the federal government plays a critical role in defining the legal status of Native American tribes, their sovereignty, and their relationship with state governments. It is essential in shaping policies and regulations that affect Native American communities, particularly through treaties, court decisions, and legislative measures.
Federal Trust Responsibility: Federal trust responsibility is the legal obligation of the United States government to protect the interests and well-being of Native American tribes and their members. This concept shapes the relationship between the federal government and tribal nations, emphasizing the government’s duty to safeguard tribal sovereignty and resources.
Federally recognized tribes: Federally recognized tribes are Native American communities that have been acknowledged by the U.S. government as sovereign entities, which gives them certain rights and privileges under federal law. This recognition is crucial because it allows these tribes to access federal funding, engage in government-to-government relations, and exercise self-governance. The process for gaining federal recognition can be complex and lengthy, often involving evidence of historical existence and continuity as a distinct community.
Guardian-ward relationship: The guardian-ward relationship refers to the legal and social bond established between a guardian and a ward, where the guardian is responsible for the care and management of the ward's personal and financial affairs. This relationship is often formed to protect those who are unable to manage their own affairs, such as minors or individuals with disabilities. In the context of Indigenous nations, this relationship can be tied to issues of sovereignty and self-determination, as it involves the oversight of the ward’s rights and autonomy by a guardian, often seen in cases involving Native American tribes.
Indian Commerce Clause: The Indian Commerce Clause refers to the constitutional provision in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes. This clause is significant because it establishes a federal authority over trade and relations with Native American tribes, influencing tribal sovereignty, self-governance, and the legal framework surrounding federal-tribal interactions.
Indian Country: Indian Country refers to land that is recognized by the federal government as being under the jurisdiction of Native American tribes. This term encompasses all lands that are part of a tribe's reservation, along with other areas that are considered Indian land, such as trust lands and dependent Indian communities. Understanding Indian Country is crucial because it defines the legal framework within which tribal governments operate and interacts with state and federal laws.
Indian Removal Act: The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a law passed by the U.S. Congress that authorized the forced relocation of Native American tribes living east of the Mississippi River to lands west of the river. This act was part of a broader policy of Indian removal, which aimed to open up land for white settlers and led to significant loss of life and culture among Native American communities.
John Marshall: John Marshall was the fourth Chief Justice of the United States, serving from 1801 to 1835. He is best known for establishing the principles of American constitutional law and significantly shaping the relationship between federal and state governments, especially regarding Native American rights and sovereignty.
Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction refers to the legal authority of a court or governing body to make decisions and enforce laws within a specific geographic area or over certain types of cases. In the context of Native American Law, jurisdiction is critical as it determines which governmental entities can exercise legal authority over tribal lands, members, and matters involving Native Americans, thus shaping the complex interplay between state, federal, and tribal systems.
Land Rights: Land rights refer to the legal rights that individuals or communities hold regarding the ownership, use, and management of land. These rights can encompass various aspects, including access to land, the ability to control land resources, and protection against dispossession. Understanding land rights is crucial for addressing historical injustices faced by Indigenous peoples and for navigating contemporary challenges related to land management, especially in light of environmental issues and tribal sovereignty.
Plenary Power: Plenary power refers to the complete and absolute authority granted to a governing body, particularly by the Constitution, to legislate on matters pertaining to Native American affairs. This concept is significant in understanding the federal government's unique relationship with tribal nations, often allowing Congress broad discretion over tribal sovereignty and affairs.
Self-Governance: Self-governance refers to the ability of a community or group to govern itself without external interference, exercising autonomy and control over its own affairs. This concept is deeply rooted in tribal sovereignty, where Native American tribes assert their rights to manage their internal governance, laws, and resources independently from state or federal authorities.
Sovereign Immunity: Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that protects a sovereign entity, such as a government or tribal nation, from being sued without its consent. This concept is rooted in the principle that the state cannot commit a legal wrong and is therefore immune from civil suits or criminal prosecution. In the context of Native American law, sovereign immunity plays a critical role in defining the legal interactions between tribal nations and the federal government or individual states, impacting various aspects of governance and legal jurisdiction.
Trail of Tears: The Trail of Tears refers to the forced relocation and movement of Native American nations, primarily the Cherokee, from their ancestral lands in the Southeastern United States to designated Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River during the 1830s. This tragic event resulted in the suffering and death of thousands, representing a dark chapter in U.S. history that highlights the consequences of government policies aimed at removing Indigenous peoples from their lands.
Treaty rights: Treaty rights refer to the legal entitlements and protections afforded to Native American tribes based on treaties made between those tribes and the United States government. These rights often include fishing, hunting, land use, and self-governance, and they form a critical aspect of the relationship between Native tribes and federal authority.
Tribal sovereignty: Tribal sovereignty refers to the inherent authority of Indigenous tribes to govern themselves, make their own laws, and manage their internal affairs without external interference. This concept is foundational for recognizing tribes as distinct political entities, and it connects deeply with historical and contemporary legal frameworks surrounding Indigenous rights and governance.
Trust relationship: The trust relationship refers to the legal and moral obligation of the federal government to protect and manage the interests of Native American tribes and their members. This relationship is grounded in treaties, statutes, and court decisions, and it establishes a framework for federal oversight, ensuring tribes retain certain rights and sovereignty while receiving support and protection from the federal government.