USpreme Court Case Study

In regards to the Cherokee people, they had taken every right step by the rules of a Eurocentric society to earn the right to stay on their own land. In 1832 the Worchester vs Georgia took place. The plaintiff, the Cherokee Nation won the case. John Marshall declared they were considered a distinct community with clear borders and had the right to govern their own territory. However, Jackson ignored this and went on to remove the Cherokees forcefully. Since what Jackson did was against the ruling of the court his acts were their fore unconstitutional. Since the Indian Removal Act, in regards to the Cherokees, was fundamentally stealing, the act cannot be justified (document I).

filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an action challenging the authority of Georgia's laws. The Cherokees disputed that the laws desecrated their chief rights as a nation and criminally interfered into their treaty relationship with the United States. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the court held that it did not have the authority to strike down Georgia's laws. In dicta that became particularly important in American Indian law, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Cherokees constituted a "private, dependent nation" that existed under the custody of the United States.

In 1823, in the case of Johnson v. M'Instosh, the argument was between two men who both held titles to the same piece of land. M'Intosh's was sold to him by the government while Johnson's was sold to him by the Plankeshaw tribe. Chief Justice Marshall ruled the land did not belong to the tribe in the first place, so they did not have the right to sell it to Johnson. The law stated that the Native Americans did not actually own the land, only the rights to live on it, and that the discovering nation was the only one allowed to sell the land. This law is not only demeaning, but outrageously inconsiderate towards the Native American tribes who should have been given full rights to the land in the first place.

The Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case is also important to talk about when trying to explain the thoughts the Supreme Court had on the status of Native American’s. This case can be seen as one of the most hateful towards an Indian tribe, as it stripped away the basic human rights of the Cherokee nation held within their own legal tribal boundaries. Not only was the state of Georgia against the tribe but it seems as though the Supreme Court was as well. As they ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a dependent nation of the United States and that Indian tribes were not sovereign nations according to article three of the constitution. Again justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court stating that ‘Their (Their meaning Native Americans) relation

In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Cherokee didn’t consider themselves as a union with Georgia they considered them selves as a independant nation and said that Georgia cannot enforce laws on them. The United States Surpreme Court set aside Worcester’s verdict. This lead to a treaty still allowing withdrawals/ removals of

     In Georgia, the Cherokee Indians had developed a lifestyle that included schools, mills, and turnpikes. In the 1820's, under pressure from the state to give up their lands, they wrote a constitution, hired lawyers, and sued in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall upheld the rights of the Cherokee against Georgia. However, Jackson refused to carry out the decision that ordered Georgia to return Cherokee lands. He is quoted as to have said, "Marshall has made his opinion, now let him enforce it."

The Market Revolution adversely affected the liberty of Native Americans residing within the United States because they were seen as an obstacle to the country’s economic progress. As the Market Revolution ideas of commerce and expansion took hold in the minds of the people, these white citizens shared the view that Native Americans were hindering the goal of expansion. It was the United State’s God-ordained right to occupy and settle the land westward (Manifest Destiny), and the Native Americans were in the way. The conflicts with Native Americans has existed in America since the first settlers, but with the increased emphasis on commerce and development brought by the Market Revolution, the relations worsened. In 1823, during the case of Johnson v M’Intosh, the Supreme Court claimed that Native Americans only had the “right of occupancy” on their land, and that they did not own it. In 1830, under Jackson’s administration, the Indian Removal Act was created which tried to move the 5 Civilized Tribes out of their lands. Finally, in the Trail of Tears during 1838-1839, 18,000 Cherokee men, women, and children were forcibly removed from their lands and relocated to Oklahoma by federal soldiers. Soon

The Market Revolution adversely affected the liberty of Native Americans residing within the United States because they were seen as an obstacle to the country’s economic progress. As the Market Revolution ideas of commerce and expansion took hold in the minds of the people, these white citizens shared the view that Native Americans were hindering the goal of expansion. The citizens believed it was their God-sanctioned right to settle the West (Manifest Destiny) and the Native Americans stood in the way. Conflicts with Native Americans have existed in America since the first settlers, but with the increased emphasis on commerce and development brought by the Market Revolution, the relations worsened. In 1823, during the case of Johnson v M’Intosh, the Supreme Court claimed that Native Americans only had the “right of occupancy” on their land, and that they did not own it. In 1830, under Jackson’s administration, the Indian Removal Act was created which tried to move the 5 Civilized Tribes out of their lands.

In 1831, the Cherokee nation went to court against the state of Georgia. They were disputing the state’s attempt to hold jurisdiction over their territory. Unfortunately, because they are not under the laws of the constitution, the Indian’s right to court was denied. It was not until 1835 that the Cherokee finally agreed to sign the treaty, giving up their Georgia land for that of Oklahoma.

Once at the highest court available in the State, the Cherokee had kept with their rhetoric that they were not wishing to attack the Europeans or those living near them. They only wished to have the promise of the government that they made to not encroach onto their lands and then everyone can

The US Supreme Court, in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 1 1 (1831) declared the Cherokee people to be a “dépendent domestique nation,” allowing a policy of separatism through the reservation system The Cherokee individuals had lived in Georgia and what is currently the southeastern Joined States for many years. In 1542, Hernando

. . regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Constitution further enumerates these powers denied to the states in Article I section x. The state of Georgia challenged the federal government’s power over states rights, a precursor to the Civil War, when it challenged the trust relationship and the autonomy of the Cherokee. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in three decisions (Marshall Trilogy) upheld the United States’ federal power, defined the responsibility of the doctrine of federal trust, and clarified the sovereignty of Indian nations: Johnson v McIntosh 1823, Cherokee v Georgia 1831, Worcester v Georgia 1832.

In Chapter 6, Wilkins discusses how the disclaimer clauses. These clauses keep states from exercising authority on Indian land (180). They are an “important but often overlooked tool in the arsenal available to tribes to assert their own sovereignty against state threats” (177). A specific example of a disclaimer clause is Wisconsin’s territorial disclaimer of 1836 which prohibited territories or states from having any authority on Indian land (180). In Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council (1959) it was declared that Indian tribes actually have a higher status than states (179). This was a major victory for Indians in their fight for sovereignty. United States v. Rickert (1903) was also a win for sovereignty in that the Court prohibited South Dakota from taxing Indian land (185).After the verdict in Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996), the balance of power between state and federal government leaned towards the states. Before this, negotiations with tribes had been conducted at the federal level and not with states (187). This was against the idea of sovereignty because now the states had more power over the tribes and could abuse that power for personal gain.

But other Indians rebelled and did not want to leave their land. “One of the most remarkable Nation was the Cherokees who took their protest to the United States Supreme Court” (47). They protested because the state of Georgia was trying to make laws for that would govern the Cherokee nation and they disagreed because they felt that they were not subject to state laws. In the Supreme Court’s decision on the case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall had determined that the Indians were not subject to state laws, but neither were they independent. Actually, the Constitution did not give any specific authority to the federal government in dealing with the Indians. In other cases it was expected that the foreign treaty clause had provided authority. Despite Marshall’s decision that they were not independent powers, it was well known that the United States government had believed that the tribes were independent nations until 1871. In theory, all 370 treaties written until that time took the side that all of the Indians are entitled to their lands. This could only be terminated through the signing of treaties just like the United States had done with other foreign nations (48). As we see with the Indian Removal Act of 1830, this theory was just a myth.

With the federal government’s support, many Native tribes have constructed Native Governments and Corporations where the rights to land and money are placed to their own responsibility. What this actually means is that the rights of the people’s land and monetary bonds are transferred from governmental trust to