3.2 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) was a pivotal case in shaping the legal status of Native American tribes. It introduced the concept of tribes as "domestic dependent nations," setting the stage for the complex relationship between tribes and the federal government.

The case arose from Georgia's attempts to seize Cherokee lands, highlighting the ongoing struggle for tribal sovereignty. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion established the guardian-ward relationship, 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 self-governance
• 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 federally recognized tribes
• Congress has plenary power 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 John Marshall 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 jurisdiction
• 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 trust relationship

Federal Authority over Tribes

Congressional Power and the Trust Relationship

• Congress has broad authority over Indian affairs derived from the Indian Commerce Clause 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 Indian Country (reservation lands) unless expressly granted by Congress
• Tribes retain authority over internal matters such as membership, cultural practices, and local governance
• Treaty rights, such as hunting and fishing rights or land rights, 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

• Indian Removal Act 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 Trail of Tears
• Removal policies had devastating consequences for tribes, resulting in widespread loss of life, land, and cultural cohesion