3.4 Impact of the Marshall Trilogy on Federal Indian Law

The Marshall Trilogy shaped federal Indian law, defining the relationship between Native tribes, the U.S. government, and states. These landmark cases established key doctrines like Discovery, tribal sovereignty, and the trust relationship, setting the stage for complex legal interactions.

These rulings created a unique legal status for Native tribes as "domestic dependent nations." While recognizing tribal sovereignty, they also subjected tribes to federal authority, leading to ongoing tensions between tribal rights and U.S. government power.

Landmark Cases

Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823)

• Established the Doctrine of Discovery, giving European nations ultimate sovereignty over Native American lands upon "discovery"
• Recognized Native Americans' rights to occupy and use their traditional lands, but not full ownership rights
• Held that only the federal government, not private individuals, could acquire land from Native American tribes
• Laid the foundation for the federal government's power over Native American affairs and land transactions
• Reinforced the notion that Native American tribes were not fully independent sovereign nations, but rather subject to the authority of the United States

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

• In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that Native American tribes were not foreign nations, but rather "domestic dependent nations" under the protection and jurisdiction of the United States
• Established the concept of the federal trust relationship, whereby the federal government has a responsibility to protect Native American tribes and their interests
• In Worcester v. Georgia, the Court held that the laws of Georgia had no force within the Cherokee Nation's territory and that only the federal government had authority over Native American affairs
• Affirmed the principle of tribal sovereignty, recognizing that Native American tribes retain inherent powers of self-government within their own territories
• These cases solidified the federal government's exclusive authority over Native American affairs and the unique political status of tribes within the American legal system

The Marshall Court's Impact

• Under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, the Supreme Court established foundational principles that continue to shape federal Indian law today
• The Marshall Trilogy cases (Johnson v. M'Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and Worcester v. Georgia) defined the legal relationship between Native American tribes, the federal government, and the states
• These decisions recognized Native American tribes as distinct political entities with inherent sovereignty, while also subjecting them to the ultimate authority of the federal government
• The Marshall Court's rulings laid the groundwork for the complex and often contradictory nature of federal Indian law, balancing principles of tribal sovereignty with the plenary power of Congress over Native American affairs

Key Doctrines

Doctrine of Discovery and Aboriginal Title

• The Doctrine of Discovery, as articulated in Johnson v. M'Intosh, gave European nations ultimate sovereignty over Native American lands upon "discovery"
• This doctrine limited Native American tribes' ownership rights to a right of occupancy, known as aboriginal title
• Aboriginal title recognizes Native Americans' rights to occupy and use their traditional lands, but not full ownership rights
• The federal government, as the successor to European nations' claims, holds the ultimate title to Native American lands and has the exclusive right to extinguish aboriginal title through purchase or conquest

Tribal Sovereignty and Domestic Dependent Nations

• Native American tribes are recognized as distinct political entities with inherent powers of self-government within their own territories
• However, as "domestic dependent nations," tribes are subject to the ultimate authority and protection of the federal government
• The concept of tribal sovereignty, as affirmed in Worcester v. Georgia, recognizes that tribes retain the right to govern their internal affairs, subject to limitations imposed by Congress
• This unique political status places tribes in a position subordinate to the federal government but separate from the states, creating a complex web of jurisdictional issues

Trust Relationship and Plenary Power

• The federal trust relationship, established in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, imposes a responsibility on the federal government to protect Native American tribes and their interests
• This trust relationship is based on the idea that tribes are dependent on the federal government for protection and support, and the government has a corresponding duty to act in the best interests of the tribes
• The plenary power doctrine, derived from the Indian Commerce Clause and the Treaty-Making Power, gives Congress broad authority to legislate on matters affecting Native American tribes
• This plenary power, combined with the trust relationship, has led to a complex and often paternalistic approach to federal Indian policy, with Congress exercising extensive control over Native American affairs

Federal Preemption

• The doctrine of federal preemption holds that federal law supersedes state law in matters related to Native American tribes and their members
• This principle, established in Worcester v. Georgia, recognizes that the federal government has exclusive authority over Native American affairs and that state laws generally do not apply within tribal territories
• Federal preemption has been a key tool in protecting tribal sovereignty and limiting state interference in tribal governance and economic activities
• However, the application of federal preemption has been inconsistent, with courts sometimes allowing state jurisdiction in certain areas, such as criminal law and taxation

Constitutional Provisions

Indian Commerce Clause and Treaty-Making Power

• The Indian Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with Native American tribes
• This clause has been interpreted broadly to give Congress plenary power over Native American affairs, including the authority to legislate on a wide range of issues affecting tribes and their members
• The Treaty-Making Power (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) gives the President the power to make treaties with Native American tribes, with the advice and consent of the Senate
• Treaties between the federal government and Native American tribes have been used to establish political relationships, define tribal rights and obligations, and address issues such as land cessions and hunting and fishing rights
• The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that treaties, along with the Constitution and federal laws, are the supreme law of the land, superseding state laws and constitutions

Aboriginal Title and the Fifth Amendment

• Aboriginal title, as recognized in Johnson v. M'Intosh, refers to Native Americans' rights to occupy and use their traditional lands, but not full ownership rights
• The federal government holds the ultimate title to Native American lands and has the exclusive right to extinguish aboriginal title through purchase or conquest
• The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which requires just compensation for the taking of private property for public use, has been applied to the taking of Native American lands by the federal government
• However, the application of the Takings Clause to aboriginal title has been limited, with courts often holding that the extinguishment of aboriginal title does not require compensation unless recognized by treaty or statute